>> GOOD MORNING.
THIS IS A SPECIALLY SCHEDULED
MEETING FOR THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL.
TODAY IS TUESDAY SEPTEMBER THE
21st 2021.
IT IS 9:34 A.M.
I AM THE CHAIR AND HAPPY TO
WELCOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE
ASKED, PETERSON AND MORALE US
HERE AND IN THE MEANWHILE, WE
HAVE THE STAFF MEMBER HERE
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
TAUNTS MEMBER PETERSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALE US?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> IN TODAY'S COMPANY MEETING,
AS OF YESTERDAY'S BRIEFING
BRINGING TWO BILLS HERE THAT
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR THE
PAST SEVERAL MONTHS WHICH WILL
HAVE ADDRESSED THE CRISIS DUE
TO SKYROCKETING RENT.
WE DO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR LATER THIS WEEK
IF COMMUNITY MEMBERS NEED MORE
TIME HOWEVER, BEFORE THE
COUNCIL BIT BEGINS BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS WE WILL GO OVER
THIS EXTENSIVELY.
TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE
COMMITTEE VOTE TODAY.
IT REQUIRES LANDLORDS TO PROVIDE
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE CROSSED
THE A PROCESS KNOWN AS ECONOMIC
EVICTIONS.
THERE'S BEEN MASSIVE
DISPLACEMENT IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS PRIMARILY DRIVEN
BY SKYROCKETING RENT.
THIS IS BEEN PROVEN THROUGH
DATA ANALYSIS WITH STATISTICAL
SIGNIFICANCE THAT THIS IS THE
PRINCIPLE AN OVERWHELMING REASON
FORCING THOUSANDS FROM THEIR
HOMES NEIGHBORHOODS AND
THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SOME SHOW THAT EVERY INCREASE
RESULTS IN A 15% STAGGERING
DISTANCE DESIST A LINK.
IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS ON THE
VERGE OF BECOMING MUCH WORSE.
THEY HAVE REPORTED THAT RENT IN
SEATTLE HAS INCREASED MORE THAN
25% IN 2021 SO FAR.
AND IT IS ON TRACK TO INCREASE
40% BY THE END OF THIS YEAR.
AND WE ARE SEEING THE EFFECTS
WITH 60,000 RENDERED BEHIND ON
THEIR RENT.
MOST OF WHOM OWE MORE THAN THIS
LEVEL.
ADD TO THAT THOSE THAT WILL BE
PRICED OUT AS RICK CONTINUES TO
RISE OUT OF CONTROL.
IT IS NOT JUST A PROBLEM IN
SEATTLE.
WE KNOW THAT THIS IS HAPPENING
THROUGHOUT OUR REGION AND ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT IS
BEING DRIVEN BY MACROECONOMIC
FACTORS.
THEY HAVE REAL ESTATE
SPECULATION.
WE REALLY NEED IS RENT CONTROL
WITHOUT THE LOOPHOLE TO
REGULATE WHAT WE CAN HAVE HERE
WE WILL DISCUSS THAT.
IN THE MEANTIME WE DO NEED
LEGISLATION TO CONTINUE TO HELP
MITIGATE THE HARM THAT HAS
SKYROCKETED IN ADDITION WITH
THE BILLS THAT HAVE ALREADY
PASSED THIS YEAR.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE BILLS
PRESENTED TODAY WILL DO.
IN SEATTLE THEY'VE BEEN
DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT AND
THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
RELOCATION SYSTEMS IN THE CITY
COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS, THEY WERE
FORCED TO MOVE BECAUSE OF
OUTRAGEOUS RENT INCREASES.
FACING THE SAME DIFFICULTIES
WITH WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
IT MAKES THEM ELIGIBLE FOR
RELOCATION AND FORCED TO MOVE
WITH 10% OR MORE.
THIS SHOWS OTHER PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY THAT ARE ALREADY IN
PLACE.
IN 2018, PORTLAND, OREGON HAD
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE
ECONOMICALLY DISPLACED BY
INCREASES OF 10% OR MORE.
ANOTHER TO BE ULTIMATELY
DISCUSSED IS THE REQUIREMENTS
TO PROVIDE SIX MONTHS NOTICE
FOR ANY LEASE.
CURRENTLY ONLY TWO MONTH NOTICE
IS REQUIRED.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED
BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE WINTERS
COMMISSION.
IT IS UNFORTUNATELY MORE
CONFUSING THAN IT SHOULD BE.
WITH THE ELECTRONIC LEGISLATION
SYSTEM.
ON THE AGENDA IS THE PROPOSED
SUBJECT WHICH MAKES ETHICAL
EDITS AND DOES NOT CHANGE ANY
SUBSTANTIAL LISTS WITHIN THE
LAW. A
PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE WITHOUT
THIS LEVEL IT WOULD SHOW YOU
WHAT THE BILL DOES WITHOUT
DELAYING YOUR SCREEN FOR
TECHNICAL CHANGES.
INCREASING THE NOTICE THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO GIVE CANNOT STOP
THE RENT INCREASES BUT DOES
GIVE RENTERS THE TIME TO
REARRANGE THE LIVES IF OR WHEN
THEY NEED TO COME FORWARD.
AND THESE ARE NOT EXORBITANT.
MANY GREATER THAN 10%.
THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED
SITUATION IT IS ALMOST AN
EVERYDAY PHENOMENON.
IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN
TERMS OF ALLEVIATING THE
DIFFICULTY ON THE SPACE IN
SEATTLE.
I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT
WILL BE POSTED IN AN ORDER THAT
I DID NOT INTEND.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS AND I
WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP THE SIX
MONTH NOTICE AND THE ECONOMIC
EVICTIONS SECOND.
SO I ASK MEMBERS IF THERE ARE
ANY OBJECTIONS TO CHANGING THE
AGENDA TODAY.
>> PLEASE NOTICE THIS FIRST AND
THE ECONOMIC ADDITION SECOND.
BEFORE WE BEGIN PUBLIC, I WILL
READ THE NAMES WITH THIS
DOCUMENT.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE THOSE WITH
PUBLIC COMMENT.
I'M OPENING UP THE SPREADSHEET
HERE AND EACH PERSON WILL HAVE
UP TO ONE MINUTE TO SPEAK.
SO PLEASE TRY TO WRAP UP YOUR
COMMENT WITHIN A MINUTE.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE TRY TO GIVE
TO MINUTES BUT WE HAD 30 PEOPLE
SIGNED UP.
AND WITH THE COMMITTEE HAVING
TO DO THE DISCUSSION ON THE
ACTUAL VOTE, I'M APPEALING TO
EVERYONE TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS
TO ONE MINUTE.
DEBORAH GOING FROM MY OFFICE
WILL BE MONITORING THIS PUBLIC
COMMENT MICROPHONE.
AND THANK YOU ALSO TO THE IP
STAFF FOR HELPING US WITH THIS.
HAVING SAID THAT, OUR FIRST
SPEAKERS ARE DANIEL CAVANAUGH
AND ROCHON BURNS.
>> HELLO.
I AM A RENTER IN DISTRICT 3.
I'M CALLING FOR MY SUPPORT
INCLUDING THE SIX MONTH NOTICE
FOR RENT INCREASES AND FOR
THOSE DISPLACED BY ECONOMIC
LEVEL.
MANY OF US ARE RENT BURDENED.
WHICH MEANS THAT MORE THAN 30%
OF OUR INCOME GOES TO RENT.
WHICH LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR
COST OF RENT HIKES.
IT HAS RISEN 25% SINCE THE
START OF THIS YEAR.
WE KNOW SEATTLE IS DOMINATED BY
A HANDFUL OF CORPORATE LEVELS.
WE SEE HUGE PROFITS OFF THE
BACKS OF NORMAL PEOPLE.
SMALL LANDLORDS MAY RENT ONE
THEY CAN AFFORD TO GIVE THEIR
TENANTS THAT LONG.
THERE'S NO REASON BEYOND
EXPLOITATION FOR THAT RENT HIKE.
WE CANNOT ALLOW CORPORATE
LANDLORDS TO CONTINUE TO PROFIT.
WITH RENT CONTROL AND
PROTECTION HERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> NEXT WE HAVE DANIEL
CAVANAUGH.
BUT BEFORE HE GOES ON I WOULD
LIKE TO RECOGNIZE MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC THAT WE ARE BEING
JOINED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOUIS.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
SO, DANIEL GOES NEXT.
AFTER DANIEL WILL BE ROCHON
GARZA AND JACOB SHOE.
>> HELLO.
I WANT TO STRONGLY URGE THOSE
TO VOTE ON THIS LEVEL.
IT HAS RISEN MORE THAN 25%
SINCE JUST JANUARY OF THIS
YEAR.
PEOPLE ARE REALLY FEELING THE
CRUNCH.
SO WE REALLY NEED CITYWIDE
RANKINGS WITH NO CORPORATE
LOOPHOLES.
I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR
BRINGING FORWARD THE RENT
CONTROL LEGISLATION.
OVER 200 WORKING PEOPLE GATHERED
OVER THE WEEKEND ON CAPITOL
HILL DESPITE THE RAIN TO RALLY
FOR CIELO TO HAVE RENT CONTROL.
SO, WE NEED STRONG PROTECTION
AND MOST IMMEDIATELY WE URGE
THEM TO VOTE YES ON THE TWO
BILLS THAT ARE COMING UP.
AND SIX MONTH NOTICE FOR ANY
RENT INCREASE WHICH COMMISSION
SUPPORTS.
AND ALSO REQUIRING LANDLORDS TO
PAY THREE MONTHS RENT AT THE
TIME OF EVICTION ASSISTANTS.
>> I'M CALLING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER'S WANT.
THERE WAS THE INITIAL SHOCK BUT
RECOVERY IS IN FULL SWING.
THEY CAN PRICE GOUGE AS MUCH AS
THEY WANT.
WHILE THAT IS NOT SHOWING ANY
SIGNS OF SLOWING DOWN RENT IS
NOW SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER.
THE PORTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE RENT BURDEN WAS OVER 42%
AND IT HAS ONLY GOTTEN WORSE.
NOW WAS NOT THE TIME TO WORRY
ABOUT BURDENING THOSE WHO HAVE
PROFITED OFF OF THOSE IN THIS
PANDEMIC OR CREATING THE POLLS.
WE NEED TO MAKE THINGS EASIER
ON REGULAR AND WORKING PEOPLE.
IT MEANS PASSING BOTH PROPOSALS
FOR SIX MONTH NOTICE AT ANY
RENT INCREASE AND ECONOMIC RENT
ASSISTANCE AND PASSING REAL
RENT CONTROL.
INC.
YOU.
>> NEXT IS JACOB SHOE.
GO AHEAD.
PLEASE PRESS STAR IN THE NUMBER
SIX UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JACOB SHOE.
I'M AN ORGANIZER WITH REAL
CHANGE.
I'M CALLING TO URGE ALL COUNTS
MEMBERS TO VOTE YES ON THE SIX
MONTH RENT INCREASE NOTICE AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
LEGISLATION.
TO BE VERY CLEAR TO EVERY
COUNCIL MEMBER, WE ARE IN A
FULL-FLEDGED CLIENT CRISIS AND
ON THE PRECIPICE OF OTHER
DISASTERS FOR THOUSANDS OF
RENTERS HERE IN SEATTLE.
THIS SHOWS THAT AROUND 50,000
SEATTLE WINTERS ARE BEHIND ON
RENT AND THE LOCAL EVICTION
MORATORIUM LEGISLATION HERE
SHOWS THERE IS AN UNDERESTIMATE.
THE CRISIS IS NOT OVER LIKE
THEY WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE.
WE NEED TO BE TAKING EVERY
POSSIBLE MEASURE TO KEEP OUR
NEVERS IN THEIR HOMES.
IT CAN LEAD DIRECTLY TO
HOMELESSNESS.
AND THIS SHOWS WHAT CAN HELP
KEEP PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES AND
LIMIT THE TOTAL POWER THEY HAVE
OVER TENANTS WELL-BEING AND
SAFETY.
THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE IF WE
DON'T TAKE THESE MEASURES
IMMEDIATELY.
THESE VOTE YES ON THE SIX MONTH
RENT INCREASE NOTICE WITHOUT
DELAY OR THE POLLS.
THANK YOU.
>> CAN KNOW GREGORY.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS HANNAH I AM A RENTER
IN DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
AND I'M CALLING IN TO VOTE YES
ON THIS LEVEL.
SINCE THE START OF THE YEAR IT
HAS RISEN AT FIVE TIMES THE
NATIONAL AVERAGE.
THE EVICTION MORATORIUM'S ARE
ENDING.
AND THE SEATTLE TIMES JUST
REPORTED 60,000 SEATTLE RENTERS
ARE BEHIND ON THEIR RENT.
THE MAJORITY SHOW THAT THEY ARE
LIKELY TO FACE EVICTION IN THE
NEXT TWO MONTHS.
THIS AND THE FACT THAT RENT IS
RISING AT 25% IN SEATTLE IS NOT
AN ISOLATED FACT.
RENTERS ARE FACING A MASSIVE
CRISIS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IN THE MEANTIME CORPORATE
LANDLORDS GET A HUGE PROFIT.
WE NEED THESE BASIC PROTECTIONS
TO STOP THIS BARBARIC PROCESS.
CORPORATE LANDLORDS MAKING A
QUICK BUCK AT THE EXPENSE OF
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
VOTE YES TODAY.
NO DELAYS AND NO WATERING DOWN.
THANK YOU.
>> CAN KNOW GREGORY AND
MARGARET STEWART.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS KATE RUBEN.
AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AND RENTER LIVING WITHIN
DISTRICT NUMBER TWO.
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT
WAGES HAVE NOT KEPT UP AND HALF
OF THEM HAVE BEEN SHOWING THE
FLEXIBILITY WITH ECONOMIC
CHANGES.
CURRENTLY I UNDERSTAND THAT
LANDLORDS ONLY HAVE TO GIVE A
60 DAY NOTICE.
MOST OF WHICH COME WITH
ADDITIONAL SEVERAL HUNDRED
DOLLARS PER MONTH ON TOP OF
THEIR RENT INCREASE IF THEY ARE
NOT WILLING OR ABLE TO COMMIT
THEMSELVES FOR ANOTHER FIXED
TERM AT WHATEVER RATE THE
LANDLORD CHOOSES.
THE LANDLORD JUSTIFIES THIS
GOUGING IS INCOME STABILIT.
BUT WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THIS TO
PROVIDE THIS OVER THE STABILITY
OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY
LIVE AND WORK HERE?
EXTENDING THE INCREASE NOTICE
TO SIX MONTHS AND OFFERING
ECONOMIC EVICTION WILL GIVE
RENTERS MUCH-NEEDED TIME AND
FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST THE
BUDGET OR FIND OTHER
FOUNDATIONS TO STAY ROOTED
WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SHOWING
IS NOT PRESENT.
SO, WE WILL CALL ON THIS NAME
ONCE YOU SHOW UP AS PRESENT.
SO THE NEXT, PRESENT SPEAKER IS
MARGARET STEWART FOLLOWED BY
JORDAN QUINN.
AND THEN BRUCE BECK HER.
GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS MARGO.
I LIVE PAY CHECK TO PAYCHECK
AND I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF
THE MEASURE TO REQUIRE SIX
MONTH NOTICE FOR RENT INCREASES
AS WELL AS LEGISLATION BEING
BROUGHT FORWARD WITH RENT
CONTROL.
SPENT LAST MONTH COUCH SURFING.
STILL WORKING FULL-TIME WITH A
CONSISTENT PLACE TO STAY THERE
IS A HUMILIATION INVOLVED WITH
IT.
I WAS LOOKING AT THAT FRIENDS
TO STAY WITH WHICH IS A LUXURY
MANY DO NOT HAVE.
THEY NEED AT LEAST SIX MONTHS
NOTICE.
TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO MOVE IF
THEY NEED TO.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE
ECONOMICALLY IN DID THOSE
LANDLORDS SHOULD HAVE TO PAY
THREE MONTHS RENT OR RELOCATION
EXHIBIT BUT WE NEED THE END OF
THIS TO COME FORWARD.
THERE IS NO WATERING DOWN OR
THE POLLS.
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GUARANTEE
ACTUAL STABILITY THAT WE NEED
IS STRONG UNIVERSAL RENT
CONTROL.
I WAS HAPPY TO BE PART OF A
RALLY WITH OVER 200 MEMBERS IN
THE RAIN.
>> JOHN WINKLE NEXT.
ON THE NEXT PERSON ON THE LIST
HEAVY TO A QUAY. SORRY IF I'M
NOT PRONOUNCING HER NAME
CORRECTLY BUT YOU ARE NOT
SHOWING ON THE LIST.
MAKE SURE YOUR CALLING FROM THE
CORRECT PHONE NUMBER AND IF YOU
CAN SHOW UP AS PRESENT I WILL
CALL ON YOU.
JORDAN QUINN AND THEN BRUCE
BECK HER AND EMILY THE FAR.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> GREAT.
MY NAME IS JORDAN.
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT NUMBER
TWO.
AND I'M CALLING TO URGE THE
COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE TO VOTE
YES ON THE LEGISLATION.
IT WILL MAKE LANDLORDS PAY FOR
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE IF THEY
RAISE 10% OR MORE.
AS WELL AS LEGISLATION REQUIRING
LANDLORDS TO PROVIDE SIX MONTHS
NOTICE FOR ANY RENT INCREASE.
I TALKED TO HUNDREDS OF RENTERS
WHO SAY THAT LANDLORDS JACKED
THE RENT BY 300 400 AND
SOMETIMES YOU A $500.
IF YOU'RE ALONE WITH NO WAY TO
NEGOTIATE.
EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY,
I'VE HEARD SIMILARLY FROM
OTHERS WHO ATTENDED THIS LAST
SATURDAY.
THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN
THE CITY.
PASSING THE ASSISTANCE WILL
MAKE IT EASIER FOR WORKING-
CLASS RENTERS IN THE CITY THAT
WE WORK IN.
>> BRUCE BECKER AND MARGARET
FAIN.
>> GO AHEAD BRUCE.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS BRUCE BECKER.
I MISS MALDEN LORD HERE IN
SEATTLE.
I AM OPPOSED TO BOTH OF THESE
AND I ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE
AND THE COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST
THEM.
IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT HAVING
LANDLORDS PROVIDE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE FOR TWO AND THREE
MONTHS RENT YOU'VE ONE LANDLORD
BASICALLY PAYING ANOTHER
LANDLORD FOR THE RENT OF
ATTENDANT.
THE TENANT HAS ALREADY PAID THE
LAST MONTHS RENT AND WAS
LEAVING.
SO IT DOESN'T PAY AGAIN NOW.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR.
AND THEY GET THE DEPOSIT BACK
THE COMET COVER ANY DAMAGES.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAVE ONE
LANDLORD PAY RENT FOR A TENANT
TO ANOTHER LANDLORD.
IT'S NOT NEEDS-BASED.
YOU HAVE WEALTHY TENANTS DEALING
WITH SMALL LANDLORDS WHO HAVE
NO INCOME.
THANK YOU.
>> EMILY MacARTHUR FOLLOWED BY
MATTHEW WALDER.
>> HELLO MY NAME IS EMILY
MacARTHUR.
I STOOD PROUDLY IN THE RAIN
WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON
SATURDAY.
AND I CANNOT STOP BUT HELP
THINK ABOUT THOSE WHO FACED
HOMELESSNESS AND NOW HAVE
STABILITY ONLY TO HAVE HER LIFE
ROCK BY 25% RENT INCREASE ON
HER APARTMENT.
THEY NEED THAT SIX MONTHS OF
RENT INCREASE NOTICE.
IT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE
LIFELINE.
ADWARE AS WOULD THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
AS THEY INCORRECTLY SPOKE
AGAINST CALLING THIS FULLY BACK.
THIS SPEAKER SPOKE ABOUT HOW
THEY NEED THIS URGENTLY.
WITH PEOPLE BEING PUSHED OUT OF
THE CITY AND HOUSED THIS WAY.
THEY NEED TO PASS THIS WITHIN
THIS LEVEL.
>> BARBARA FINNEY FOLLOWED BY
MATTHEW WALDER?
AND THEN MADELEINE OLSON.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS BARBARA FINNEY.
AND THE UNION I BELONG TO AS
ALREADY ENDORSED THE RENT
CONTROL CAMPAIGN FROM COUNCIL
MEMBER SWAN'S OFFICE.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'M
ASKING YOU TO VOTE YES ON SIX
MONTHS NOTICE FOR ANY INCREASE
AND ASSISTANCE.
NO LOOPHOLES AND NO DELAYS.
WE NEED REGULATION IN THE
COMMON INTEREST DISTRICTS LIKE
SEATTLE.
THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ARE
RENTERS.
THE WELL-BEING OF RENTERS IS
COMPLETELY CONNECTED TO THE
WELL-BEING OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
AND COMMUNITIES.
SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBERS THE ONES
LEGISLATION AND VOTE YES ON SIX
MONTHS NOTICE FOR ANY RENT
INCREASE AND THE ECONOMIC
EVICTION ASSISTANTS.
WITH NO DELAYS.
THANK YOU.
>> MATTHEW WALDER FOLLOWED BY
MADELEINE OLSON AND THEN THE
NEXT SPEAKER LISTED IS MICHAEL
LEE NEAT SHOWING IS NOT PRESENT.
SO UNLESS MICHAEL SHOWS UP
AFTER MADELEINE IT WILL BE
KAREN TAYLOR.
GO AHEAD.
>> I AM A RENTER IN DISTRICT 3.
CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE
PROTECTION BILLS AS THEY
MENTIONED.
IT'S GONE UP OVER 25% THIS YEAR
AND OVER 200 PEOPLE HAVE
GATHERED TO FIGHT RENT CONTROL.
DESPITE THE WEEKEND RAIN THEY
WERE THERE.
MOST OF THE TENANTS FACING
EVICTION ARE NOT WEALTHY AS
PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID THESE ARE
YOUR WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE WHO
ARE STRUGGLING PAYCHECK TO
PAYCHECK.
AND CORPORATE LANDLORD TO
MAKING A CHOICE TO PROTECT THE
PROFITS AT THE PRICE OF THE
WORKING PEOPLE AND THAT'S
WHAT'S CREATED A HOUSING CRISIS
IN THE CITY.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO NOT GIVE
NOTICE AT SIX MONTHS FOR RENT
INCREASE.
WE ARE IN A SERIOUS HOUSING
CRISIS.
IT IS NOT ONLY IMMORAL BUT
ULTIMATELY WE FIGHT FOR RENT
CONTROL WITH NO LOOPHOLES.
>> MADELEINE OLSON FOLLOWED BY
KAREN TAYLOR AND NATE GALLAGHER.
>> HELLO CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> MY NAME IS MADELINE AND I AM
A RENTER IN THE GREENLIGHT
NEIGHBORHOOD.
CALLING IN SUPPORT OF COUNTS
MEMBER SWAN'S LEGISLATION.
I THINK THE CONCEPT THAT IT IS
ONEROUS TO REQUIRE NOTIFIED
RENT IS RIDICULOUS.
THE STABILITY IT PROVIDES FOR
THE RENTER AS WELL AS THE
LANDLORD IS GREAT.
YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO EVICT
YOUR TENANT IN CASE YOU
ACTUALLY ARE.
AND WHY WOULD YOU BE DOING
THAT?
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POKE A HOLE
IN THIS WEALTHY WINTER AREA.
AND THEREFORE THEY NEED
ASSISTANCE.
NOBODY WANTS TO LEAVE THEIR
HOMES FOR ARBITRARY REASONS.
AND FOLKS CANNOT AFFORD TO MOVE
THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDED THE
ASSISTANCE BY THE LANDLORD
JACKING UP THE RENT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS KAREN TAYLOR AND
JOSH SMITH.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS KAREN TAYLOR.
I AM A RENTER.
I AM CALLING BECAUSE I AM
TERRIFIED FOUR MONTHS A YEAR
ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
I AM ON A FIXED TERM LEASE AND
I'M VERY GLAD THAT WE CLOSED
THE LOOPHOLE SO THAT THEY HAVE
TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SIGN THE
LEASE FIRST.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RENT
IS GOING TO BE LIKE.
AND I DON'T WANT TO BE
TERRIFIED FOUR MONTHS A YEAR
AND WORKING FOR PLACES THAT MAY
OR MAY NOT BE NEEDED HERE.
AND PART OF THE REASON WHY AM
TERRIFIED IS THAT I HAVE NO
MONEY TO RELOCATE ANYWHERE.
AND SO I THINK SIX MONTHS IS A
FAIR AMOUNT OF NOTICE AND I DO
THINK THAT HELPING FOLKS LIKE
ME NOT HAVE THE STUFF PUT ON
THE STREET WOULD BE GREAT.
IRON MOVIES OR WHAT HAVE YOU
WOULD BE REALLY GREAT.
AND I DON'T CARE IN REGARD TO
THE LANDLORD.
>> NATE GALLAGHER IS NOT
SHOWING IS PRESENT.
SO NEXT WE HAVE JOSH SMITH AND
THEN JIM HENDERSON IS ALSO NOT
SHOWING AS PRESENT.
SO GAIL FREED US.
SO, JOSH SMITH AND THEN GAIL
FREED US.
GO AHEAD JOSH.
>> YOU ARE STILL MUTED AND YOU
NEED IT STAR AND THE NUMBER SIX
UNMUTE.
>> MY NAME IS JOSH.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I AM PART OF SEATTLE'S LGBT Q
PLUS COMMUNITY AND I'M ASKING
YOU TO VOTE YES ON SIX MONTHS
NOTICE FOR ANY RENT INCREASE
AND YES ON ANY ECONOMIC
EVICTION ASSISTANTS.
FROM JANUARY TO AUGUST,
CORPORATE LANDLORDS HAVE LOADED
SEATTLE RENT BY A STAGGERING
25%.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I
CERTAINLY DID NOT GET A RAISE
AT THAT TIME.
AND MY FELLOW SEATTLEITES DID
NOT EITHER.
OVER 60,000 ARE BEHIND HIM RENT
AND 64% OF THESE RENTERS ARE
FACING EVICTION IN A MATTER OF
DAYS.
THIS PROPORTIONATELY AFFECTING
THE LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY AND
EXACERBATING THE HOUSING CRISIS
THAT WE CURRENTLY FACE.
RNTERS OF THE MAJORITY IN
SEATTLE AND IT IS YOUR DUTY TO
REPRESENT US.
WE SENT A CLEAR MESSAGE AND
ASKED FOR THESE PROTECTIONS FOR
A LONG TIME.
WE DEMAND THIS LEGISLATION BE
PASSED WITHOUT WATERING IT
DOWN.
THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT PERSON IS KATHY
SIMS AND AMARA WILSON.
DONALD DOTY IS NOT SHOWING AS
PRESENT.
IF YOU CAN HEAR ME MAKE SURE
YOU'RE CALLING FROM THE CORRECT
PHONE NUMBER.
>> HELLO MY NAME IS:FREIGHT IS.
I'M IN DISTRICT NUMBER 211
EMERGENCY SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
I WANT TO VOICE MY APPROVAL FOR
PASSING THE 180 DAYS WRITTEN
NOTICE AND RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE TO ECONOMICALLY
DISPLACED TENANTS.
IT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE FROM
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE HERE,
THAT THE EMERGENCY SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING IS EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH
THE ONSLAUGHT OF RENTERS THAT
ARE FACING EVICTIONS ESPECIALLY
AT THIS TIME AND THIS EMERGENCY
BILL WOULD HELP ESPECIALLY IN
THIS MOMENT TO KEEP THINGS FROM
GETTING WORSE.
AND IN A LOGICAL MATTER IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT
DISPLACE MORE TENANTS AT THIS
TIME.
OF COURSE I WANT TO ADD THE
FEAR OF BEING ATTACKED IS
DEFAULT IN OH THIS SEATTLE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> KATHY SIMS FOLLOWED BY
TAMARA WILSON AND LAURA LOON.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS KATHY SIMS.
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT NUMBER
TWO.
I'M HERE TODAY TO URGE CITY
COUNCIL TO VOTE YES ON RENTAL
PROTECTIONS BROUGHT FORTH BY
COUNCILMEMBER SALONS AND
UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS MATTER.
CITY COUNCIL MUST PROTECT
FAMILY BY MANDATING LANDLORDS
TO GIVE SIX MONTHS NOTICE FOR
ALL RENT INCREASES AND PROVIDE
ECONOMIC RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
THE COST OF MOVING IS CRUSHING
FOR THOSE LIVING PAYCHECK TO
PAYCHECK.
THEY CAN OFTEN AMOUNTS TO 3 TO 4
TIMES THEIR INCOME.
RENTERS ARE BEING DISPLACED AND
CITY COUNCIL MUST AT TO STOP
DISPLACEMENT WHICH CAN
DISPROPORTIONALLY AFFECT THOSE
OF COLOR AND FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN.
60,000 RENTERS ARE BEHIND ON
RENT.
ACT NOW TO PROTECT SEATTLE
RENTERS WHO ARE THE GEORDIE OF
SEATTLE'S RESIDENCE.
>> TAMARA WILSON?
>> YOU ARE MUTED.
PLEASE HIT STAR IN THE NUMBER
SIX.
>> HELLO.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
HELLO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I AM A RENTER IN DISTRICT
NUMBER TWO.
I'M ALSO A PROUD MEMBER OF THIS
COMMUNITY.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS
RENT LEGISLATION.
DUE TO SEATTLE'S HISTORY OF
RACIST PRACTICES WE ARE
SYSTEMICALLY DISENFRANCHISED
FROM OBTAINING FAIR VIEW.
EVICTION CRISIS IS COMING
QUICKLY HERE.
NOW THAT IT IS ABOUT TO END,
THEY ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
AFFECTED.
I CALL EVERYONE TO VOTE YES ON
THIS LEGISLATION AS WELL AS SIX
MONTHS NOTICE WE NEED IT NOW
MORE THAN EVER.
THANK YOU.
>> LAURA LOAN FOLLOWED BY ERIC
BAKER WHO IS SHOWING IS NOT
PRESENT.
IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, MAKE SURE
YOU CALL THE RIGHT NUMBER.
AND AFTER THAT IS SONIA.
GO AHEAD LAURA.
>> MY NAME IS LAURA.
I'M A RENTER IN NORTHWEST
MEDIAN BUT I'M CALLING ON
BEHALF OF THE ACTION PLAN THAT
WE HAVE WITH 7000 FOLLOWERS ON
TWITTER AND MANY RENTERS IN OUR
STAFF GROUP.
WE ARE IN FAVOR OF BOTH THE SIX-
MONTH NOTICE FROM AN INCREASE
AND IN FAVOR OF THE ECONOMIC
EVICTION PROTECTION.
WE ARE CURRENTLY VERY CONCERNED
THAT THEY ARE LOSING HOPE IN
THE GOVERNMENT.
AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
THEY DO SO LITTLE FOR THOSE IN
OUR CITIES STUCK MAKING THEIR
OWN POLICIES.
WE NEED STATEWIDE RENT
STABILIZATION.
IN THE MEANTIME GIVE THE
RENTERS OF SEATTLE HOPE.
WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE THEM
LANDLORDS ARE RUNNING A
BUSINESS.
BUT HOUSING IS LIKE HEALTHCARE.
AND UNPREDICTABILITY OF RENTING
HAS BECOME A PUBLIC A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS.
WE NEED STABILITY AND WE NEED
COUNCIL MEMBER LOUIS TO CONTINUE
BEING A CHAMPION FOR RENTERS
AND BEING IMPORTANT HERE.
THANK YOU.
>> LIAM CALABRO AND:BY GABRIEL
THE HAHN.
GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS LIAM.
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT NUMBER
FOUR.
I WANT TO SUPPORT THE BILLS PUT
FORWARD BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SLOAN'S OFFICE FOR RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
AND TO GIVE THE SIX-MONTH
NOTICE ON RENT INCREASES.
I THINK THE QUESTION THAT WE
NEED TO ASK OURSELVES, IS WHO
DO WE WANT TO PAY FOR THIS
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS?
WORKING PEOPLE OR THE
LANDLORDS?
WHAT PEOPLE ARE ECONOMICALLY
EVICTED WHERE DO THEY GO?
I'VE WORKED AS AN EMT IN THE
EMERGENCY ROOM FOR THE LAST FEW
YEARS.
I'VE LEARNED THAT YEARS HAVE
BEEN USING THEM AS PROXIES FOR
HOUSING WHEN THE HOUSING IS
FULL.
THEY SEEK HOSPITAL BEDS RATHER
THAN SLEEPING ON THE STREETS.
AS MANY HAVE SAID, THOUSANDS OR
RISK OF EVICTION IN THE COMING
MONTHS.
AND CERTAINLY THEY WILL BE
MASSIVE INCREASES IN THESE
VISITS.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
IT MEANS THAT THE BRUTALITY OF
ECONOMIC EVICTIONS ALSO KEEPS
STRESS ON THESE BURDEN SYSTEMS.
THEY ARE USUALLY PAID FOR BY
OUR TAX DOLLARS THROUGH
MEDICARE, AND MEDICAID.
SO, THE WORKING CLASS AND THE
PUBLIC AT LARGE SHOULD NOT BE
PAYING FOR THE HOUSING CRISIS
WITH OUR TEXT DOLLARS.
LANDLORDS NEED TO PAY FOR
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
>> SONIA FOLLOWED BY GABRIEL
THE HAHN.
AND MARILYN YIM IS OUR LAST
SPEAKER WHO IS PRESENT.
SONIA, BEFORE YOU GO AHEAD LET
ME READ OUT THE NAMES OF
SPEAKERS THAT ARE SHOWING IS
NOT PRESENT SO THEY CAN COLLECT
IT IF THEY WANT TO.
KENDAL GREGORY A SEDA A QUAY AND
MEGAN GALLAGHER.
AND DONALD DOTY AS WELL AS ERIC
BAKER.
AND SONIA SHOWING.
MAKE SURE YOU ARE CALLING THE
SAME NUMBER YOU USE TO SIGN UP.
>> HELLO.
I AM A WORKING MOTHER IN
DISTRICT 3. I SUPPORT RENT
CONTROL AND THE TWO BILLS THAT
ARE COMING UP.
I'D SEE IT TREMENDOUSLY
ENCOURAGING FOR THE RENT
CONTROL RALLY IN THE RAIN.
BUILDING A MOVEMENT IS THE WAY
THAT WE WILL WIN THIS THING.
RENTS ARE RISING WITHIN 25%
WITH 60,000 BEHIND RENT.
INCOME IS NOT RISING.
BECAUSE OF COVID-19 PEOPLE HAVE
LIMITED ABILITY TO WORK.
SO THE EVICTION MORATORIUM IS
GOING TO BE EXTENDED AS WELL
AND I URGE OTHER COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO JOIN IN AND ASK THE
MAYOR AND THE GOVERNOR TO
EXTEND THIS.
I ALSO SUPPORT SIX MONTHS
WRITTEN NOTICE FOR ANY RENT
INCREASE.
BECAUSE AS A LANDLORD, I HAVE A
PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT MY
NEEDS ARE AND I CAN COMMUNICATE
THAT TO THE RENTERS.
I ALSO SUPPORT EVICTION
ASSISTANTS.
IT'S VERY RARE THAT A SMALL
LANDLORD IS GOING TO HIKE IT
THAT HIGH.
SO THESE WOULD BE THE CORPORATE
LANDLORDS WE WERE RESPONSIBLE
AND PAY THE THREE MONTH RENT.
>> GABRIEL MOYA HAHN YOUR NEXT
FOLLOWED BY MADELINE EN.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS GABRIEL.
I'M A TECH WORKER AND RENTER IN
DISTRICT 3. CALLING IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL ON RENTAL
PROTECTION.
OTHER THAN THE APARTMENT
COMPLEX AND THOSE THAT HOUSE
100 PEOPLE IN EVERYDAY JOBS LIKE
TEACHERS SOCIAL WORKERS AND
MORE HAVE BEEN BOUGHT OUT BY
ANOTHER MENTAL CORPORATION.
MANY GOT LOCAL RENTS WHEN THEY
SIGNED DURING THE PANDEMIC.
AND NOW MY NEIGHBORS ARE SCARED
NOT JUST OF THE RENT WILL
INCREASE DRAMATICALLY, BUT WERE
TERRIFIED OF THE UNCERTAINTY
NOT KNOWING HOW MUCH THE RENT
IS GOING TO GO UP.
TWO MONTHS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME
TO PLAN FOR WHAT COULD BE A
DRAMATIC UPROOTING OF OUR
LIVES.
AND WHY WE NEED THE RENT
CONTROL AND STABILITY THAT
COMES WITH IT.
AT THE LEAST WE CAN GET A
DECENT HEADS-UP.
AND GET SOME HELP AND RELOCATE.
I UNDERSTAND COSTS RISE BUT
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY
CANNOT GIVE US A REASONABLE
HEADS-UP.
I URGE A YES VOTE BECAUSE MY
NEIGHBORS DESERVE NOTHING LESS.
>> ERIC BAKER AND MADELEINE YIM.
>> HELLO.
SEATTLE LOST 5000 MENTAL HOMES
IN THE LAST YEAR.
THAT 60% OF THE RENTAL STOCK
MOSTLY OWNED BY SMALL MOM-AND-
POP HOUSING PROVIDERS.
SIX MONTHS NOTICE ME TO CANNOT
BE TIED TO REAL COST.
IT'S HARD TO PREDICT WHAT THE
COST WILL BE SIX MONTHS FROM
NOW.
BUT I WANT TO TALK BUT THE
RELOCATION REALIZATION.
IT IS NOT BASED ON NEEDS.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE INCOME OR
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
THE PAYMENT IS UNLIMITED
WHEREAS CURRENT PROGRAMS THE
PAYMENT IS CAPPED AT $2000.
IT SHOWED A PAYMENT OF FIVE
TIMES THAT.
SO $10,000 CASH PAYMENT WITH
ONLY SEVEN DAYS OF NOTICE.
NO SMALL MOM-AND-POP HOUSING
PROVIDER CAN COME UP WITH THAT
WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE LEAVING
SEATTLE.
WITH THE LOSS OF THIS HOUSING
PROVIDERS INCLUDE UNION MEMBERS
AND WORKING PEOPLE JUST LIKE
MYSELF TO BE SHUT OUT OF THIS
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
AND THAT CANNOT MAKE YOU FEEL
VERY GOOD.
SO PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS
ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU.
>> ERIC BAKER, GO AHEAD.
PRESS STAR AND THE NUMBER SIX
TO UNMUTE YOURSELF PLEASE?
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS ERIC BAKER.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
I'M CALLING IN OPPOSITION TO
BOTH OF THESE ORDINANCES.
I AM A SMALL LANDLORD IN HIS
CENTRAL DISTRICT.
DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
AND I AM CONCERNED THAT IT WILL
HAVE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUNCE
FOR SMALL LANDLORDS LIKE
MYSELF.
WE HAVE ONE HOUSE.
IF I HAVE TO RAISE AS A TENANT
GETS A 10% RAISE THAT WITH ME 2
1/2 YEARS TO EARN BACK THAT
MONEY IF IT'S RAISED.
IT WILL COST US A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF MONEY.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE
180 DAYS FOR ANY AMOUNT OF
RAISE AS WE DON'T RAISE IT
BETWEEN TENANTS TYPICALLY.
WE MAY RAISE IT 5% AND WE HAVE
TO WAIT SIX MONTHS TO OFFSET
OUR COST INCREASES THAT WILL BE
HARD FOR US.
SO I AM URGING YOU TO
RECONSIDER BOTH ORDINANCES.
THANK YOU.
>> SO ALL SPEAKERS SHOWING IS
PRESENT AS SPOKEN.
AND THE REST WHO DO NOT SPEAK
ARE SHOWING IS NOT PRESENT.
BECAUSE WE'VE REACHED THE END
OF THE LIST I WILL BE CLOSING
THE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT
ABLE TO SPEAK.
AND I THINK THOSE WHO DID SPEAK.
WE WILL GO TO THE FIRST ITEM
NOW ON THE AGENDA WHICH IS THE
BILL INCREASING NOTICE REQUIRED
FOR RENT INCREASES FOR SIX
MONTHS FROM THE CURRENT TO TWO
MONTHS NOICE AS REQUIRED.
I WILL READ THE BILL INTO
RECORD FIRST.
ORDINANCE RELATING TO
RESIDENTIAL LABOR PROPERTIES
REQUIRING A MINIMUM OF 180 DAYS
PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE WHENEVER
THE HOUSING COST IS TO INCREASE
AMENDED SECTION POINT 034 OH
AND 22 POINT 206180.
OF THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
PROGRAM.
IT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND WE
DISCUSSED THIS IN COMMITTEE.
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS
CITY COUNCIL IS HERE TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND
BEING HERE IN THE COMMITTEE FOR
MANY COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
SO, I NOW OPEN THE FLOOR FOR
COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ASK THEIR
QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY COMMENTS.
GO-AHEAD COUNCIL MEMBER
PETERSON.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU CENTRAL STAFF FOR
HELPING US WITH THESE TWO BILLS.
I KNOW ARE COUNCIL RULES ALLOW
US TO WALK ON AMENDMENTS IT'S
IDEAL TO GIVE US AS MUCH NOTICE
AS POSSIBLE AND I WAS NOT ABLE
TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE.
WE DID CIRCULATE THIS VIA EMAIL
WITH TWO AMENDMENTS.
BUT I WANTED TO GO FORWARD THIS
ONE AMENDMENT HERE AND ONE ON
THE OTHER.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THIS,
THE 60 DAYS NOTICE IS CURRENT.
BEFORE THAT IT WAS 14 DAYS.
THE REQUIREMENT WAS 30 DAYS
NOTICE FOR ANY RENT INCREASE IN
THE SEATTLE CITY LAW HAD 60
DAYS NOTICE FOR ANY RENT
INCREASE OVER 10%.
BUT IN 2019 EVERYTHING BECAME
PART OF STATE AND CITY NOTICE
FOR ANY RENT INCREASE.
>> I CAN EITHER STEP ASIDE SO
OTHERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS OR I
CAN TRY TO MOVE MY AMENDMENT.
>> MAYBE JUST LET ME CHECK BY
GOING AROUND THE TABLE TO SAY
THAT WE HAVE GOING HERE WITH
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE
VOTE ON THIS?
>> VERY NICE.
SO, I DON'T REALLY HAVE
QUESTIONS BUT IN GENERAL ONLY I
DO SUPPORT EXTENDING
NOTIFICATIONS. AS SOMEONE THAT
WAS RENTING UNTIL FAIRLY
RECENTLY I KNOW IT'S STRESSFUL
TO TRY TO THINK ABOUT HOW
YOU'RE GOING TO FIND A NEW
PLACE TO LIVE.
TAKEN THE TIME TO FIND
SOMETHING AFFORDABLE AND
ORGANIZING YOUR PACKING OR
PERHAPS HIRING HELP IN FIGURING
OUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR
SECURITY DEPOSIT TO AN
APPLICATION HERE.
THAT CAN ALL TAKE TIME AND
RESOURCES.
AND MONEY FRANKLY.
SO, TO ME THIS MAKES SENSE TO
GIVE FOLKS AS MUCH NOTICE AS
POSSIBLE AND I DO THINK
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE KIDS
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU
PUT YOUR KIDS IN SCHOOL THERE'S
A LOT THAT GOES INTO HAVING TO
MOVE.
AND SO, IT DOESN'T SEEM
UNREASONABLE TO ME TO HAVE
TENANTS HAVE AS MUCH STABILITY
AND PROTECTION AS POSSIBLE TO
BE ABLE TO MAKE PLANS THAT ARE
NEEDED TO GET THEMSELVES
STABILIZED IN THE NEW PLACE
WHERE THEY ARE GOING.
I DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
I AM CURIOUS TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR
AMENDMENTS COUNTS MEMBER
PETERSON.
BUT, AT THIS POINT I THINK THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES A LOT
OF SENSE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNTS MEMBER
MORALE OH AND LEWIS.
I'M NOT SAYING ANY OTHER HANDS
GOING UP.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
BOTTOM CHAIR.
>> SO, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE
WALKING ON ONE OR ARE YOU
WALKING ON BOTH AMENDMENTS?
OR IS IT ON COUNTS OF BILL
11985?
>> ONE AMENDMENT FOR THIS BILL
IN A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT FOR
THE SECOND BOAT.
>> THE ONE ENDING IN 103?
>> YES.
THE BILL BEFORE US NOW I THINK
IS ENDING IN 585.
FOR SIX MONTH NOTICE.
AND THEN WE WILL GO TO ITEM
NUMBER TWO WHERE WE SWITCH THE
ORDER OF THE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY.
>> I'M SORRY.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS
SWITCHED.
NO WONDER I WAS CONFUSED.
>> THAT IS MY FAULT.
I WASN'T TRACKING.
I WAS READY TO SECOND THAT SO
WHENEVER YOU ARE READY MADAM
CHAIR GO AHEAD.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE ARE
TWO AMENDMENTS TO 11 9585.
IT'S THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER IN
THE FORCE OF THE SUBSTITUTE ON
THE AGENDA.
AND THEN NUMBER TWO IS COUNTS
MEMBER PETERSON'S AMENDMENT.
>> OKAY.
SO JUST FOR THE MENTAL PROCESS
HERE, I DO NEED TO MOVE THE BILL
FORMALLY BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS
CAN BE CONSIDERED.
BUT COUNTS MEMBER PETERSON GO
AHEAD AND DESCRIBE YOUR
AMENDMENT AND THEN WE WILL GO
TO THIS PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, THE AMENDMENT
CIRCULATE IT BY EMAIL THIS
MORNING TO YOU, SHOWS THIS IS
THE BILL THAT IS EXTENDING THE
NOTIFICATION FOR SIX MONTHS.
WHAT MY AMENDMENT WOULD DO, IS
EXEMPT THE SMALL LANDLORDS WHO
OWN FEWER THAN FIVE UNITS IN
SEATTLE.
AND I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT
FURTHER LATER.
UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD
AND HITCH IT NOW OR IF YOU WANT
A QUICK DESCRIPTION THAT WAS
IT.
>> OKAY.
AND WERE YOU DOING HERE?
>> SHARING MY SCREEN OR WE CAN
DO IT WHEN YOU WANTED TO TAKE
THE VOTE.
LET ME JUST GO AHEAD AND DO
THIS MOTION.
I MOVE COUNCIL BILL 119585 FOR
APPROVAL.
>> SECONDED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE BILL IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
NOW WE CAN CONSIDER AMENDMENTS
FORMALLY.
ACTUALLY, FOR SIMPLICITY, I
WOULD RECOMMEND REMOVING THE
SUBSTITUTE WITH COUNTS MEMBER
PETERSON HERE.
IS THERE ANY SUBSTITUTE HERE?
DISCUSSION?
OR FURTHER COMMENT?
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
SUBSTITUTION.
>> COUNSELOR RESELLERS?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER MORALE IS?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> POUNDS COUNTS MEMBER WERE IS?
COUNTS MEMBER LEWIS?
NOW WE HAVE THE AMENDED BILL
WITH THE TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS
IN FRONT OF US.
WE CAN NOW CONSIDER ANY
AMENDMENTS.
GO-AHEAD COUNTS MEMBER PETERSON.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR A LOT.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE MY
AMENDMENT WHICH IS AMENDMENT
NUMBER TWO CIRCULATED THIS
MORNING TO EXEMPT SMALL
LANDLORDS.
AND THERE IS YOUR MOTION TO
DISCUSS.
>> SECONDED.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND IS
SECONDED.
ARE THERE ANY COUNCILMEMBERS
WHO WANT TO SPEAK HERE?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR'S A LOT.
MY COLLEAGUES I APPRECIATE THE
INTENT OF THE BILL AND I DO
AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT THE
COUNTS MEMBER MORALE 00 SAID.
THE THEME OF THE RESPONSE TO
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC HAS BEEN
TO ROOT BOOST RENTAL ASSISTANCE
FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN NEED.
WE'VE ALSO ADOPTED SEVERAL
LENTILS RIGHTS INCLUDING A
WINTER BAN ON EVICTIONS WHICH I
DID SUPPORT.
I'VE HEARD FROM MANY SMALL
LANDLORDS THAT THE INFLUX OF
MULTIPLE CHANGES TO THE
REGULATIONS HAS CREATED QUITE A
LOT OF CONFUSION AND
DISCOURAGES MANY OF THEM FROM
CONTINUING TO PROVIDE HOUSING
IN OUR CITY.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS A 60 DAY
NOTICE REQUIREMENT.
AND I SUPPORT EXPANDING THIS
NOTICE PERIOD AS WRITTEN IN THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR THE
LARGER CORPORATE LANDLORDS.
BUT, MY AMENDMENT WOULD EXEMPT
SMALL LANDLORDS WHO OWN FEWER
THAN FIVE UNITS IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
SO WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT AND
THE DESCRIPTION.
ARE THERE ANY COUNTS MEMBERS
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS?
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE WHAT COUNTS MEMBER
PETERSON IS TRYING TO DO.
BUTTS, I THINK FIRST OF ALL,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
AS WE ALL HAVE THAT THERE IS A
CRISIS RIGHT NOW.
PARTICULARLY WITH PEOPLE BEING
PUSHED OUT AND INCREASED
ISSUES.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE
CONTRIBUTING TO THAT.
THE BROADER CONTEXT OF COURSE
IS THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT MANY
ARE HAVING TROUBLE PAYING
MORTGAGES RIGHT NOW.
EVERYONE IS IN A CRISIS.
THE DIFFERENCE, IS THAT IF A
LANDLORD IS FALLING BEHIND OR
IF THERE'S A RETURN ON
INVESTMENT LESS THAN THEY WOULD
PREFER, THEY HAVE THE OPTION
DRASTIC THOUGH IT MAY BE TO
SELL.
WHEREAS A RENTER, IF THEY FALL
BEHIND ON THEIR RENT, THEY GET
IN DID.
SO I THINK THERE IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE DEGREE TO WHICH FOLKS ARE
AT RISK HERE.
THIS BILL DOES NOT PREVENT
LANDLORDS FROM RAISING THE
RENTS.
IT JUST ASKS THEM TO GIVE A FEW
MONTHS MORE NOTICE.
AND I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU
LIVE IN A SMALL APARTMENT
BUILDING OR A LARGE APARTMENT
BUILDING, THAT NEED FOR
PROTECTION IS STILL THE SAME.
SO, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
SOME CONCERNS.
BUT I THINK ALL OF THE SMALL
LANDLORDS THAT WE HEARD FROM
TODAY SAID IT THEMSELVES THEY
WOULD NEVER RAISE IT MORE THAN
10%.
SO THE ISSUE IS REALLY ASKING
TO GIVE MORE NOTICE SO THAT
FOLKS HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE
A PLAN AND DECIDE WHETHER
THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FOR
THAT RENT INCREASE OR IF THEY
NEED TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF
MOVING OUT.
SO, THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT I CAN SUPPORT
HULK THANK YOU.
>> SORRY.
I WAS MUTED.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO
SAY?
OKAY.
SO I WAS THINKING COUNTS MEMBER
MORALE OH FOR COMMENTS.
I DID RECEIVE OTHER COMMENTS.
OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANTED
TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
HERE FIRST.
I AM NOT SEEING ANY.
TO BE CLEAR, AND MAKE SURE THAT
MY POINTS ARE ACCURATE, THIS IS
AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD EXEMPT
LANDLORDS WITH FEWER THEN 4
UNITS?
IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> WITH FOUR OR FEWER UNITS.
SORRY.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER COUNTS
MEMBERS TRYING TO SPEAK SO I
WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE MY OWN
POINT.
IN MY VIEW, THIS AMENDMENT EVEN
IF IT IS WELL INTENDED, I HAVE
MY OWN QUESTIONS HERE AS I'VE
SAID MANY TIMES IN THE COUNCIL
MEETINGS, THE QUESTION OF SMALL
LANDLORDS IS OFTEN REALLY
FRAUGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT EASY
TO SEE WHO'S A SMALL LANDLORD
WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
PROBLEM.
WE SAW THIS DISCUSSION HAPPEN
IN THE COUNCIL AS WELL.
JUST BEFORE THE SUMMER BREAK.
AMENDMENTS TO EXCLUDE LANDLORDS
WITH FOUR OR FEWER OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE IDEA
THAT IT WOULD EXEMPT SMALL
LANDLORDS AND ACTUALLY THE
EFFECTIVENESS IS ARBITRARY.
AND IT WOULD GROW DATA SHOWING
THAT IT WOULD BE USED BY
LANDLORDS TO EXEMPT THEMSELVES
FROM CRUCIAL RENTAL PROTECTIONS
BY DIVIDING THE UNITS THEY OWN
INTO MANY LLCS.
THIS IS A COMMON THING.
YOU SEE MANY DOING THIS ALL THE
TIME.
THE CORPORATE LOBBY WOULD
RENDER THE SHIELD BUT IT IS
PRECISELY THIS CORPORATE
LANDLORDS WHO HAS THE LEGAL
MEANS WITH THE CASH ON HAND TO
DO ALL OF THIS PAPERWORK.
TO SORT OF TRY TO FLY UNDER THE
RADAR WITH THESE KIND OF
EXEMPTIONS BEING MADE.
AS MANY WITHIN THE PUBLIC
COMMENT SAID FOR RENTAL
PROTECTIONS TO BE THE MOST
EFFECTIVE WHICH THEY NEED TO BE
NOW BECAUSE RENTERS ARE REELING
AND IN CREASED IN THIS CRISIS,
IT NEEDS TO BE DONE AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.
IN MOST RENTERS, AND THIS IS
THE ABSOLUTE REALITY, THE VAST
MAJORITY ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW
HOW MANY UNITS THERE LANDLORD
OWNS.
AND IT'S NOT FAIR, OR CORRECT
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO PUT
THAT BURDEN ON A GIVEN RENTER
OR ANY PERSON.
HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO FIGURE
OUT HOW MANY UNITS THERE
LANDLORD OWNS?
SO EVEN IN THE MOST BENIGN CASE
SCENARIO, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
MAKE THE BILL MORE COMPLICATED
ASIDE FROM THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS
SO I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
ANY OTHER COUNTS MEMBERS WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK?
COUNCILMEMBER WHEREAS WERE YOU
TRYING TO SPEAK?
>> I WAS TALKING TO MYSELF.
I WAS LISTENING TO WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING COUNSELOR, MADAM CHAIR,
AND I DO THINK WE HAVE TO BE A
BIT REASONABLE.
AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
ONLY BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT FOUR
OR FEWER RENTAL UNITS.
AND, I UNDERSTAND AS WE ALL DO
THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH
WITH THE RENTER AND THE
MORATORIUM IS GOING TO HAVE TO
END.
AND WHAT THEY ARE GOING HAVE TO
DEAL WITH.
WE KNOW THAT WE STILL HAVE TO
DEAL WITH RENT CONTROL AND WHAT
THAT MEANS FOR THE CITY AND THE
STATE.
I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY
TO SOMEONE WHO OWNS PROPERTY OR
PAYS THE MORTGAGE OR OWNS FOR
RENTAL UNITS THAT THEY COULD
JUST SELL IT.
IT'S NOT THAT EASY.
AND THOSE WHO DO OWN THIS KIND
OF PROPERTY HAVE TO MAKE THIS
KIND OF MORTGAGE PAYMENTS.
AND THAT IS HARD FOR THEM TOO.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS AN US
OR THEM CORPORATE LANDLORD
VERSUS SMALL LANDLORD.
I GET TIRED OF THAT AFTER A
WHILE.
SO I GUESS MY COMMENT IS I WILL
BE VOTING YES BECAUSE I THINK
IT IS REASONABLE.
I THINK WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT
ITS.
AND AT SOME POINT, COUNTS
MEMBER SWAN I STILL WANT TO
ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION WITH YOU
ON HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A
GREAT DISCUSSION AND COME TO
SOME KIND OF GOOD CONCLUSION
ABOUT RENT CONTROL.
AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS OFF-
LINE A FEW TIMES.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS BUT I
WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
MOVEMENT BECAUSE I DO THINK IT
IS REASONABLE.
SO THANK YOU.
AND I'LL PUT MYSELF ON MUTE SO
YOU WILL QUIT HEARING ME
MUMBLE.
>> THANK YOU CUSSED COUNTS
MEMBER WAR IS.
I AM ALWAYS OPEN AS YOU KNOW
FOR ANY KIND OF CONVERSATION
ABOUT ANY OF THESE REALLY
CRUCIAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES.
SO PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU
LIKE TO TALK ABOUT RENT
CONTROL.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL AS
DRAFTED IS ABSOLUTELY
REASONABLE BECAUSE THE CRISIS IS
FALLING.
THE BRUNT OF THE CRISIS IS
FALLING ON RENTERS.
WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO SUPPORT
SMALL LANDLORDS.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE WHO
ARE INCREASING THE RENT IT'S
NOT SMALL LANDLORDS.
THE BILL IS MEANT TO PROTECT
THE VAST MAJORITY OF TENANTS OF
CORPORATE LANDLORDS WHICH IS
AGAIN GOING BACK TO STATISTICS
AND DATA AND THE FACT THAT THE
BILL IS MEANT TO PROTECT THOSE
TENANTS.
IT WILL NOT REALLY AFFECT SMALL
LANDLORDS WHO DO NOT KNOW OR
MAKE A PRACTICE OF RIDICULOUSLY
INCREASING RENTS WHICH IS WHAT
YOU SEE FROM THE REAL ESTATE
INCREASES.
THEY ARE COMING FROM
CORPORATIONS.
LIKE SX CORPORATION, KONA AND
OTHER LEVELS.
THESE ARE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CORPORATIONS AND OF COURSE YOU
HAVE LANDLORDS WITH BAD TRACK
RECORDS REALLY EXPLOIT THE LOW
INCOME RENTERS.
WHICH IS WHY I MOVE OPPOSING
THIS AMENDMENT.
BUT I WANT TO GIVE COUNTS
MEMBER PETERSON WHO IS THE
SPONSOR OF THIS AMENDMENT THE
LAST WORD ON THIS BEFORE WE
MOVE FURTHER.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S
COMMENTS ON THIS AMENDMENT.
I DID WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING
HERE.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THE SAME
AMENDMENT FOR THE NEXT BILL
WHICH IS FOR THE LARGE RENT
INCREASES.
BECAUSE I DO AGREE THAT THE
SMALLER LANDLORDS TEND TO NOT
DO THAT.
I DID WANT TO CLARIFY ALSO WITH
THIS BILL, EXTENDING IT TO SIX
MONTHS, ANOTHER 60 DAY NOTICE
IT NO LONGER HAS FOR SEATTLE
IT'S FOR ANY RENT INCREASE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
ANY LEVEL OF RENT INCREASE.
IT WOULD NOW REQUIRE A SIX-
MONTH NOTICE NOT JUST A RENT
INCREASE ABOVE 10%.
IS THAT CORRECT?
THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
ALL THE MORE REASON I THINK TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
I HOPE FOR SOME OF YOU, SO THAT
SMALL LANDLORDS ARE EXEMPT AND
NOT JUST INCENTIVIZED FROM
KEEPING THEIR HOUSING IN THE
RENTAL HOUSING MARKET.
BECAUSE WE DO WANT THIS
ADDITIONAL SUPPLY.
THANK YOU CHAIR'S A LOT FOR
GIVING ME THE SPACE TO PITCH MY
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER
AMENDMENT COMING FROM THE SPELL.
SO PHI DON'T HEAR ANY COMMENTS
I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS SO FAR.
I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL
ROLE ON COUNSEL BILL 119585.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
>> THIS IS THE VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
AMENDMENT.
>> COUNTS MEMBER'S A LOT?
>> NO.
>> COUNTS MEMBER MORALE IS?
>> NO.
>> COUNTS MEMBER PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER WAR IS?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER LIMITS?
>> NO.
>> TO IN FAVOR, THREE AGAINST.
THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS.
>> THANK YOU.
I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY CONFUSION.
NOW WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER,
IS I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER
AMENDMENTS.
HOW SHALL I WRITE ABOUT THAT?
HAVING SEEN NO OTHER AMENDMENT.
AND I DON'T HAVE ANY POINT
REALLY TO ADD TO THIS
DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE'VE
DISCUSSED THIS MANY TIMES.
I DON'T SEE ANY COUNTS MEMBERS
RAISING THEIR HANDS.
SO I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE FUNNY ON
THIS ONE.
SO, I WILL NOW ASK TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON COUNCILMEMBER
119585.
>> COUNTS MEMBER?
YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER MORALE IS?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER PETERSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNTS MEMBER WAR IS?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER LOUIS?
>> YES.
4 IN FAVOR AND ONE ABSTAINED.
>> THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US
OF THAT.
AND THANK YOU COUNTS MEMBERS
FOR THE FOR THE DISCUSSION AND
VOTE.
SO THIS BILL MOVES TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FIRST CITY COUNCIL VOTE.
ON MONDAY THE 27th.
CAN YOU CLARIFY?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, IS
THE ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT
RELOCATION SYSTEM ORDINANCE TO
MITIGATE THE HARM DONE BY
ECONOMIC EVICTIONS.
OUR FIRST READ THE BILL INTO
RECORD.
COUNSEL BILL 120173 AND
ORDINANCE RELATED TO RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE FOR ECONOMICALLY
DISPLACED TENANT REQUIRING THE
PAYMENT OF ECONOMIC
DISPLACEMENT RELOCATION TO
HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE VACATING
THE HOUSING UNIT AFTER
RECEIVING NOTICE OF INCREASE OF
10% OR MORE OR OF LESS THAN 10%
WHERE IT IS ACCUMULATIVE.
AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER OF
32.212 OF THE SEATTLE MENISCAL
CODE.
MY OFFICE STARTED TO PREPARE
THIS LEGISLATION SEVERAL YEARS
AGO BECAUSE OF RENTAL CRISIS
THAT HAS BEEN MANY YEARS IN THE
MAKING NOW.
IT HAS ONLY CONTINUED TO GET
WORSE.
AND THE BILL HAS BEEN DISCUSSED
IN THE CITY FOR THE PAST
SEVERAL MONTHS.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE WINTER
COMMISSION ALSO VOTED TO
ENDORSE THIS BILL AND MANY
ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL AS LABOR
UNION MEMBERS HAVE SPOKEN IN
THIS COMMUNITY IN SUPPORT OF
THIS.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAVE ALSO
REVISED THIS AND WE'VE
INCORPORATED THE SUGGESTIONS
FROM THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS WHILE ALSO BEING
EXCITED TO ADMINISTER IN THIS
LEVEL.
IT HAS PROVIDED A DETAILED MEMO
WHICH HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO THIS
AGENDA.
WE WILL WALK THROUGH THIS
PRESENTATION GIVING DETAILED
DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICIES
AFTER THE PRESENTATION WE WILL
HAVE A MOMENT TO DISCUSS AND
VOTE ON THE LEGISLATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU INTRODUCED
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD BUT GO
AHEAD AND BEGIN PLEASE.
>> COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF.
GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT AND I
WILL SHARE MY SCREENS YOU CAN
SEE THIS PRESENTATION.
WE ARE DISCUSSING AS THE COUNTS
MEMBER MENTIONED COUNCILMEMBER
0123 OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
THE INTENT OF THE BILL IS TO
PROVIDE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
WHEN THERE IS A RENT INCREASE
OF 10% OR MORE AND THE TENANTS
DECIDES TO RELOCATE TO FIND
ANOTHER UNIT.
SO, I WILL TAKE US THROUGH SOME
OF THE DETAILS OF THE BILL AND
THEN SOME OF THE REST OF THE
PROCESS WITH THE STAFFING
IMPACTS.
IN TERMS OF TENANTS WHO ARE
ELIGIBLE, WE ARE LOOKING AT
HOUSEHOLDS WHO HAVE RECEIVED
THEIR 60 DAY OR 180 DAY NOTICE
OF A RENT INCREASE.
AND THAT RENT INCREASE IS AT
10% OR MORE.
AND THEY'VE EITHER VACATED THE
PROPERTY OR PROVIDED NOTICE TO
THE LANDLORD THAT THEY PLAN TO
VACATE THE PROPERTY.
UPON APPLICATION, THE HOUSEHOLD
HAS TO MEET ALL DEADLINES THAT
ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS BILL
AND SHOULD REMAIN ELIGIBLE FOR
THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
AND I WILL GET INTO THOSE AS WE
CONTINUE.
HOUSEHOLDS ARE REQUIRED TO
DESIGNATE A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AS
A REPRESENTATIVE SO THAT IS THE
PERSON THAT IS GOING TO BE
REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE
HOUSEHOLD WHEN APPLYING FOR
ASSISTANCE AND ASSUMING THAT
THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED BY
THE SALES AND INSPECTIONS
DEPARTMENT, IT'S ALSO THE
PERSON THAT WOULD BE GIVEN THE
ENTITLEMENTS.
AND THE ASSISTANT ITSELF.
HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE CAN
ONLY REPRESENT ONE HOUSEHOLD AT
A TIME AND THEY CAN ONLY HAVE
ONE HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE.
THE REASON FOR DESIGNATING
HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE IS
BECAUSE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH
MULTIPLE MEMBERS, IT CAN BE
CONFUSING IN TERMS OF WHO IS
DOING THE APPLICATION, AND THE
CITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY WANTS
TO BE IN THE ROLE OF DECIDING
WHICH HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS GET HOW
MUCH OF THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
SO THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE
THE ONE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A
NEED FOR DIVIDING UP THE
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE WITHIN A
HOUSEHOLD DOING THAT WORK.
WE HAD TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF
DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE BILL
BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEX NATURE
OF ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.
AND SO, THERE IS A DEFINITION
OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT CONSISTS OF
A FAMILY HOUSEHOLD AS WELL AS
NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS.
AND AN A COMBINATION OF THOSE
HOUSEHOLDS CAN ENCOMPASS ONE
OVERALL HOUSEHOLD.
SO, AS YOU WILL SEE THERE IS A
DEFINITION OF FAMILY HOUSEHOLD
THAT DOES INCLUDE THE FAMILY
UNIT WHICH ALSO INCLUDES A
VARIETY OF RELATED PERSONS.
PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS,
GRANDCHILDREN, SIBLINGS,
CHILDREN AND ALL THE SAME
RELATIONSHIPS FOR INDIVIDUALS
THAT ARE IN A CITY OR STATE
REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP.
AND THEN NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
COVERS ANYONE THAT IS NOT A
MEMBER OF THE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD
OR SOMEONE WHO IS JUST LIVING
ALONE.
WE ALSO INCLUDED A FEW
DEFINITIONS ABOUT WHAT WE ARE
DISCUSSING WHEN WE SAY THE TERM
REQUIRED RENT INCREASE NOTICE.
ABOVE 10% WHEN IT COMES IN ONE
LARGE INCREASE AS WELL AS THE
THREAT INCREASE NOTICES THAT
ACCUMULATE TO GET US TO THE 10%
INCREASE.
THAT WOULD PUT THE 10% OVER THE
EDGE JUST AS IT TERMS WITH HOW
THE FIRST LARGE INCREASE GOES
WITH THE LARGE INCREASE PUTTING
YOU OVER 10% AS DESIGNATED.
SO THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE
DESCRIBED IN THE BILL AS WELL.
SO FOR THE NOTICES THAT ARE
INCREASING THAT ARE FOR LESS
THAN 10%, WHEN IN COMBINATION
WITH THE OTHER RENT INCREASES
THAT ARE HAPPENING WITHIN
EITHER THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO
THE RENT INCREASE OR THE TERM
OF THE TENANCY WHICHEVER IS
SHORTER.
THAT RESULTS IN ACCUMULATIVE
RENT INCREASE OF 10% OR MORE.
WHEN THEY ARE APPLYING FOR
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO APPLY A FEW THINGS
SO AS CCI HAS A FEW THIS YEAR.
SO THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT
AN AFFIDAVIT THAT ADMINISTERS
THE REUNIFICATION AND A COPY IF
THEY'VE NOT YET VACATED.
A COPY OF THE CURRENT RENTAL
AGREEMENT OR THEIR HOUSING
COSTS.
OR THE TERM OF THE TENANCY
AGAIN WHICHEVER IS SHORTER.
DOCUMENTATION OF THE RENT
INCREASE SO IF THEY HAVE THE
NOTICE OF THE RENT INCREASE,
THEY CAN SUBMIT THAT AS A TYPE
OF WORK AS WELL AS THE NUMBER
OF FAMILY AND NONFAMILY
HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE IN THE
HOUSING UNIT AND EVERYONE THAT
IS LIVING IN THE UNIT.
IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, THEY
WILL BE MAKING DETERMINATION OF
HOW MUCH RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
IS OWED TO THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE AND THUS HOW
MUCH THE OWNER IS REQUIRED TO
PAY.
BUT THE CALCULATIONS THEY WILL
BE USING IS DETAILED WITHIN THE
LEGISLATION.
AND THEY WILL LOOK AT THE
AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSING COST
FOR THE 12 MONTHS PREVIOUS OR
THE PERIOD OF THE TENANCY.
AND THEN THEY WILL TAKE THE
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS LIVING
WITHIN THE UNIT AND DIVIDE THE
AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSE COSTS BY
HOUSEHOLD.
AT THAT POINT THEY MULTIPLY
THAT NUMBER BY THREE AND THAT
IS THE AMOUNT OWED TO EACH
HOUSEHOLD.
AS AN EXAMPLE, IF WERE LOOKING
AT A RENTAL UNIT THAT'S PAYING
$3600 A MONTH WITH 2 HOUSEHOLDS
IN THE AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSING
COST FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD IS
$1800.
1800C IS 5400.
AND ASSUMING THAT BOTH
HOUSEHOLDS HAVE APPLIED FOR AND
ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE, EACH HOUSEHOLD
WOULD GET $5400 WHICH IS A
TOTAL OF $10,600 THAT THE
LANDLORD WOULD HAVE TO PAY
TODAY TO THAT UNIT.
SO THAT BASICALLY TAKES US
THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT THE
TENANT AND LANDLORD GO THROUGH
WHEN APPLYING FOR ASSISTANCE.
WHAT AS CCI DOES AND THE
PAYMENT ITSELF.
SO YOU WILL SEE IN THE UPPER
LEFT-HAND CORNER, IN THE
INITIATING ACTIONS THIRD OF THE
SLIDE, THAT THE TENANT GETS THE
NOTICE OF THE RENT INCREASE AND
THEN THE TENANT AT THAT POINT
DECIDES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
MOVE OR IF THEY ARE GOING TO
STAY.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE THE
NOTIFY THE LANDLORD THAT THEY
ARE INTENDING TO VACATE.
BEFORE IT TAKES EFFECT.
AT THAT POINT, YOU'LL SEE BELOW
STEP NUMBER THREE THAT THEY ARE
ALSO ABLE TO APPLY FOR AN
EXTENSION IF IT TURNS OUT THAT
THEY DO NEED MORE THAN THE
ALLOTTED AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND I WILL GET INTO THOSE
TIMING KEYS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
AS LONG AS THEY HAVE GOOD CAUSE
FOR APPLYING AND THEY HAVE THE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION PERIOD,
THEY WILL GRANT THE EXTENSION
AND SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION
BEFORE THE END OF THAT EXTENDED
TIME.
THEY WILL THEN TAKE A LOOK AT
THE APPLICATION.
IF THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND THE
HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE DOES
NOT REQUIRE THE EXTENSION, THEN
IT WOULD MOVE ON TO STEP NUMBER
FIVE.
EITHER WAY YOU MOVE ON TO STEP
NUMBER FIVE.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE
LANDLORD THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN
APPLICATION.
IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY DO
NOT HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION
THAT IS NEEDED AND THEY REQUEST
MORE INFORMATION FROM THE
HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE, IF
THE HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE
THEN DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY
ADDITIONAL TIME THEN THEY WOULD
JUST PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION WITHIN 30 DAYS.
IF THEY DO REQUIRE MORE
INFORMATION, THEN IN THE SAME
WAY THAT THEY WOULD REQUEST AN
EXTENSION OF THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATION THEY WOULD REQUEST
AN EXTENSION TO SUBMIT THAT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
WITHIN THAT ORIGINAL 30 DAY
PERIOD AS LONG AS AS DCI FOUND
GOOD CAUSE THEY WOULD GRANT
THAT EXTENSION.
SO AT THAT POINT THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE WOULD SUBMIT THE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND THEN
AS DCI WOULD HAVE COMPLETE
APPLICATION TO REVIEW.
LOOKING AT STEP NUMBER SIX,
ONCE THEY HAVE REVIEWED THE
APPLICATION, THEY WILL NOTIFY
THAT REPRESENTATIVE AND THE
LANDLORD OF THIS DECISION.
AND ASSUMING THE DECISION IS
THAT THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE IS ENTITLED TO
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, THEY
WOULD THEN NOTIFY THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LANDLORD
ABOUT HOW MUCH RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE IS REQUIRED.
AT THAT POINT THEY WOULD PAY
THE HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE
THAT AMOUNT OF RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE AND THE LANDLORD
WOULD THEN PAY AS DCI A FEE
AMOUNT REQUIRED WITHIN THE
NOTICE.
I WILL NOTE HERE, THAT THE
LEGISLATION IS INTENTIONALLY
DRAFTED TO REQUIRE A HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE BE PAID EVEN IF
THE LANDLORD DOES NOT PAY ON
TIME, DOESN'T PAY AT ALL OR
DECIDES TO APPEAL.
THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR AS DCI
TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT.
SO, GETTING THE PAYMENT FROM
THE LANDLORD WOULD TAKE A
SEPARATE PARALLELED TRACK.
BUT REGARDLESS, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WOULD BE PAID
IN THE APPROPRIATE TIMELINE
WHICH I CAN GET INTO NOW.
YOU CAN SEE EACH STEP OF THE
PROCESS ON THE EVENT COLUMN.
THE NUMBERS ARE THE SAME AS
WHAT IS IN THE FLOWCHART ABOVE.
OR THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
WITH THE SLIDESHOWS IS THE
LEGAL TIMEFRAME REQUIRED FOR
EACH OF THE STEPS HERE.
SO I WILL GO THROUGH EACH OF
THEM.
BUT, THEY ARE DESCRIBED WITHIN
THE SLIDE AND IN THE NEXT SLIDE
WHAT I'VE DONE IS CREATED A
SORT OF EXAMPLE TIMELINE FOR
HOW LONG THIS PROCESS COULD
TAKE.
AND SO, IN THIS TABLE YOU WILL
SEE THE SHORTER TIME LINE.
IF FOR EXAMPLE A LANDLORD
NOTIFIES THE TENANT OF A RENT
INCREASE IN THE TENANT DECIDES
THAT DAY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
VACATE AND GIVES THE LANDLORD
NOTICE A VACATION, AND DECIDE
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO APPLY
FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, THAT
ALL HAPPENS THE FIRST DAY.
AND THEN IT BASED ON THE
TIMELINE IN THE BILL, AND
ASSUMING THAT THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE IS ACTUALLY
ENTITLED TO RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE, THEY COULD GET
PAYMENT WITHIN TWO WEEKS.
IF YOU TAKE A SLIGHTLY LONGER
TIMELINE, LOOKING AT SOMETHING
PROBABLY MORE TYPICAL OR
AVERAGE, THE LANDLORD WOULD
NOTIFY THE TENANT ON THE FIRST
DAY OF THE RENT INCREASE.
THE TENANT WITHIN NOTIFY THE
LANDLORD WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH.
SO THE NEXT 30 DAYS WITH THEIR
INTENT TO VACATE.
AND THEN THEY WOULD SUBMIT THE
APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS
INSTEAD OF TAKING THE FULL 180
DAYS.
AND SO BUILDING IN MORE TIME
FOR F DCI TO REVIEW THE
APPLICATION, IF IT TURNS OUT
THAT THEY HAVE A NEED FOR MORE
INFORMATION IN THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE DECIDES TO
SUBMIT WITHOUT CONTENTION, THEN
THAT BILL IS OUT OF THE
TIMELINE TO LOOKING AT
SOMETHING CLOSER TO 3 1/2
MONTHS BY THE TIME THE
HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE IS
ABLE TO COLLECT THAT RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
AND THEN AS YOU CONTINUE TO GO
AND MOVE INTO THE NEED FOR
EXTENSIONS AND AN EVEN LONGER
TIMELINE, THAT WILL INCREASE
THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT
WOULD TAKE TO GET THE
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
I WILL HOWEVER NOTES, I WILL GO
BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
IF YOU LOOK AT STEP NUMBER
THREE, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ABLE TO SUBMIT
THE APPLICATION WITH 180 DAYS
AFTER RECEIVING WRITTEN NOTICE
OR 60 DAYS AFTER THE RENT
INCREASE TAKES EFFECT.
AND SO, THE TIME BETWEEN WHEN
THE RENT INCREASE NOTICES
ISSUED AND WHEN THE APPLICATION
HAPPENS, IT IS A LOT OF BUILT-
IN TIME BECAUSE IT COULD BE
ANYWHERE FROM 3 TO 5 MONTHS.
FOR THE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
TO BE ABLE TO APPLY.
ONCE THE APPLICATION DOES TAKE
PLACE, THE NEXT SUBSEQUENT
PERIOD OF TIME IS SHORTER.
BECAUSE THOSE TIMELINES ARE ALL
A BIT SHORTER.
SO, THE EXAMPLE TIMELINES THAT
ARE PROVIDED UPON THIS SLIDE
YOU WILL SEE ON THE LAST ROW
WHERE STEP EIGHT IS.
THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT
TAKES TENDS TO BE LONGER
BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR
THE HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE
APPLIES.
IT CAN TAKE A LONGER TIME.
I KNOW THAT IS KIND OF
COMPLICATED SO I CAN PAUSE HERE
FOR ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS THAT
ARE RELATED TO THE TIMELINE?
>> GOOD.
>> THANK YOU.
I WAS TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH
YOU YOU WERE GOING PRETTY FAST
THERE.
I KNOW THAT WE ALL KNOW THE
STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR
MUNICIPALITIES TO REQUIRE
PAYMENT OR RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
SO, I'M WONDERING WHEN YOU TOOK
US TO THAT SLIDE WITH HOW
THINGS GOT PAID, AND THEN YOU
HAVE THIS ONE HOW IT ENDED UP
WITH AS DCI PAYING THE RENTER
AND THEN THE LANDLORD
REIMBURSES AS DCI.
AND THEN JUST A PROCEDURAL
TIMELINE YOU PUT TOGETHER HOW
DOES ALL OF THAT GO?
DID YOU TRACK THAT? AND IF YOU
DIDN'T I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE FRAMEWORK.
WITH HOW THE STATES DOES THAT
WHEN WE DO RELOCATION.
WE HAD RELOCATION MONEY FOR
DISPLACEMENT FOR PEOPLE IN
MOBILE HOME PARKS.
AND TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I
DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THE MONEY
GETS EXCHANGED.
SO I'M WONDERING IF WE
PATTERNED THE SAME IN HIS POLITY
PROCESS AFTER THE STATE ONE OR
HOW WE CAME ABOUT IN THIS
PROCESS?
>> WE DID NOT PATTERN IT
EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE
EXISTING RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
AND A LOT OF THAT IS BECAUSE
IT'S A MUCH LARGER PROCESS.
SO IT TAKES A LOT MORE TIME FOR
THE TENANT TO GET THAT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
BECAUSE THE APPLICATION TAKES
US THROUGH.
SO YOU APPLY THE RELOCATION
LICENSE BEFORE THEIR ALLOWED TO
DO ANYTHING.
THEY GIVE TENANTS A WHOLE
PACKET OF INFORMATION AND THEN
THE TENANT HAS TO APPLY AND
PROVIDE THEIR INCOME
REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE PROCESS ITSELF IS QUITE
A BIT LONGER.
SOME OF THE INTENT IN THIS BILL
WAS TO TRY TO NOT MAKE IT QUITE
SO LONG.
TO TRY TO MAKE THE REQUIREMENTS
SIMPLER AND MOVE A BIT FASTER.
THAT WAY THE TENANT WOULD BE
ABLE TO GET RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
AND SO THE TIMELINE ARE A BIT
DIFFERENT.
AND THE OTHER THING THAT'S
DIFFERENT, IS THE PAYMENTS ARE
SPLIT.
SO 50% OF THESE PAYMENTS COME
FROM THE LANDLORD.
BUT 50% ALSO COMES FROM THE
CITY.
SO, SOME OF THE PROCEDURAL
PIECES WHEN IT COMES TO APPEAL
AND ADMINISTRATION ARE THE SAME.
BUT, THIS TIMELINE IS INTENDED
TO BE QUITE A BIT SHORTER.
>> SO, IF SDI PAYS A RENTER
BECAUSE OF RELOCATION, AND THEN
THE LANDLORD HAS TO REIMBURSE A
CCI, WHAT IS THE REMEDY ON OUR
PART IF THE LANDLORD REFUSES?
DOES THAT GO TO ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE OR MUNICIPAL COURT?
>> SO, FIRST THERE IS THE
CITATION AND VIOLATION
PROVISIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THE
BILL.
SO YOU HAVE FAILURE TO PAY WHAT
THE LANDLORD IS REQUIRED TO PAY
RESULTS THEN IN A CITATION OR
NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
DEPENDING ON DISCRETION, THEY
CAN PURSUE THOSE REMEDIES TO
GET REIMBURSED FOR WHAT THE
LANDLORD ACTUALLY HAS.
IF IT GOES TO A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE THEN HAS TO FILE.
TO BE ABLE TO PURSUE THAT KIND
OF REIMBURSEMENT.
IF THEY DECIDE TO PAY, THEN
THERE IS NO PROBLEM.
IF THEY DON'T IT WOULD THEN
HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY TO HAVE
TO BE REIMBURSED.
>> SO MY GETTING AHEAD OF
MYSELF OR IS THERE MORE TO YOUR
POWERPOINT FOR THE INFORMATION
THAT AS DCI SENT US THAT IT
WOULD TAKE THEM ABOUT NINE
MONTHS TO SET THIS UP AT ABOUT
9.12 MILLION TO PUT THIS COST
HERE?
ARE WE GOING TO GET TO THAT?
>> ONE QUICK QUESTION SO I
DON'T HAVE TO KEEP INTERRUPTING
YOU.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE
SPREADSHEETS, DOES THAT INCLUDE
OR IS THERE A MARGIN THERE
>> GO AHEAD.
>> THE ONE .25 IS JUST FOR THE
IT SET UP.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL
BE GETTING TO YOU.
BUT AT THE MOMENT, ASSUMING
THAT THE LANDLORD DOESN'T PAY,
AND BECAUSE WE ARE AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS THERE
IS NO PENALTY THAT SAYS THERE'S
A CITATION AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN
ASSESSED, ONE THING IS YOU HAVE
TO CONSIDER HOW MUCH SEED MONEY
AND GENERAL FUND IS GOING TO GO
INTO THIS ACCOUNT TO ALLOW THEM
TO PAY OUT POSSIBLE
REPRESENTATIVES.
SO, SOME OF THAT IS GOING TO BE
A DISCUSSION.
WE CAN REALLY COVER THOSE COSTS.
>> OKAY.
SO OBVIOUSLY THE MAIN GOAL AND
THE LEGISLATION IS TO REIMBURSE
OR MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF
DISPLACEMENT AND DUE TO RENT
INCREASE?
>> YES.
>> AND MAKE SURE THAT THE
RENTER HAS MONEY IN THEIR
POCKET TO BE RELOCATED RATHER
THAN GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE
REDTAPE PROCESS?
TRYING TO GET MONEY DIRECTLY
FROM THE LANDLORD?
>> YES.
>> SO IT ACTS AS A BUFFER TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN PAY
OUT?
>> YES.
>> SOME OF THE REASON WHY IT IS
STRUCTURED THIS WAY IS BECAUSE
THE POWER DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN
THE LANDLORD AND THE TENANT.
SO THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY IN
THE MIDDLE THE PROCESS TO
MITIGATE THESE FACTS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION
. I DID WANT TO MAKE A QUICK
COMMENT AND ADD TO EVERYTHING
THAT WAS SAID, STRESSING THAT
THE CITY HAS ALREADY PUT A LOT
OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO COLLECT
MONEY OWED TO THE CITY.
IT IS NOT LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO
INVENT THE WHOLE THING.
BUT THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROCESS
OF ADMINISTERING THIS TO ENABLE
THE ORDINANCE TO GO INTO EFFECT.
GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER MORALE
US.
>> I ACTUALLY HAD QUESTIONS
ALONG THE SAME LINES AND THE
OTHER QUESTION I HAVE AND YOU
MAY NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION
READILY AVAILABLE BUT I WOULD
BE INTERESTED TO KNOW GIVEN THE
WAY THE PROGRAM IS OPERATING
NOW, IF WE KNOW HOW MUCH
LANDLORDS ARE WITH THE ARREARS
A MEASURE OF THIS RIGHT WAY TO
FRAME IT BUT IF THERE IS
ALREADY SOME IDEA OF HOW MUCH
THEY ARE NOT PARTICIPATING THIS
PROGRAM AS WE EXPECTED.
>> I DO NOT KNOW THIS OFF THE
TOP OF MY HEAD BUT I WILL
FOLLOW-UP TO SEE WHAT CURRENT
COMPLIANCE IS LIKE.
>> OKAY.
OKAY.
SO THAT TAKES US TO REFUNDS.
SO, ASSUMING EVERYTHING GOES
SMOOTHLY WITH PAYMENTS AND
THOSE WHO HAVE DONE WHAT THEY
WERE SUPPOSED TO, REFUNDS
SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.
IF HOWEVER IT TURNS OUT FOR
WHATEVER REASON THE HOUSEHOLD
DOES NOT VACATE THE UNIT WHEN
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO, THEY
DECIDE TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS
AND END UP RESCINDING THEIR
NOTICE OF VACATION OR WITHDRAW
THE APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE,
BUT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID THEN
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO REFUND
THAT ASSISTANCE WITHIN 10 DAYS.
IN THE SAME WAY AS DCI IS
REQUIRED TO REFUND THE AMOUNT
PAID WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER AS
DCI RECEIVES THE NOTICE THAT
THE HOUSEHOLD DID NOT MOVE OUT
AS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.
OR GIVEN A WITHDRAWAL OF THE
APPLICATION.
AS FOR LANDLORDS WITH THE ROOTS
COMING BACK IT IS THE SAME
PROCESS AROUND CITATIONS AND
NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS FOR AS DCI
TO GET REFUNDS BACK FROM EITHER
THE LANDLORD OR THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVES.
SO, IN TERMS OF APPEALS, IF
EITHER THE LANDLORD OR THE
HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVES APPEAL
AND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE
APPLICATION, SO IF THE
HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE GETS
THE DECISION FROM AS DCI, THEY
ARE ENTITLED BUT THE OWNER
DISAGREES, OR THE OTHER WAY
AROUND, IF THEY GET DENIED AND
THE HOUSEHOLD THINKS THEY
SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE THEY CAN THEN APPEAL
THAT DECISION.
IT WILL BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS
OF THE DECISION IN EITHER THE
LANDLORD OR THE HOUSEHOLD
REPRESENTATIVE CAN ALSO APPEAL
BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF THAT AS
DCI CALCULATED.
SO IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY
DISAGREE ABOUT THE AMOUNT
EITHER TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE
OR THERE'S AN ERROR IN THE
CALCULATIONS THE CAN MAKE THAT
APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER.
IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT, AS WE
JUST DISCUSSED AS DCI WILL BE
ENFORCING VIOLATIONS OF THE
ORDINANCE WHICH DOES INCLUDE A
FAILURE TO PAY WHAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO.
AND AGAIN THAT IS TO THE
CITATION OR NOTICE OF VIOLATION
PROCESS.
THEY CAN ALSO USE A WARNING IF
IT HAPPENS TO BE THE PERSONS
FIRST TIME FOR VIOLATION BUT
THEY ALSO HAVE THE DISCRETION
TO CHOOSE WHICH RESOLUTION
PROCESS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO
USE BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE
DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE.
>> JUST ONE SECOND.
I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS IS
HERE.
DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK?
>> THANK YOU.
BRIEFLY, DO WE KNOW IF THIS IS
GOING TO LEAD TO A REQUEST FOR
AN ADDITIONAL RESOURCE FROM THE
HEARING EXAMINER AND WITH THE
INCREASED CASELOAD?
HAS THAT BEEN PART OF THE
ANALYSIS?
>> I DID CHECK WITH THE HEARING
EXAMINER AND THEY SEE AN
INCREASED FOR 10 TO 15 CASES
AND THEY DON'T REQUIRE ANY
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES BASED UPON
THAT ESTIMATE.
IF IT TURNS OUT THAT FOR
WHATEVER REASON THERE IS A LOT
MORE APPEALS THAN THEY ACTUALLY
ANTICIPATE THAT MIGHT REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES WITH A
SUPPLEMENTAL VERSION OR FUTURE
BUDGET PROCESS.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF
BEGINNING TO ADMINISTER ANY
APPEALS, THEY'S THEY CURRENTLY
DO NOT REQUIRE ANY MORE
RESOURCES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
SO THE LAST PART OF
ADMINISTRATION IS THE CREATION
OF THIS SEPARATE ACCOUNT.
SO IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY
HAVE THEIR OWN ACCOUNT FOR
GETTING PENALTIES TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE,
THE BILL DOES CREATE AN A
STELLAR ACCOUNT.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE, ALL
CITATIONS, PENALTIES AND MORE
GO BACK INTO THE LARGE POT OF
GENERAL FUNDS WHICH WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY ALLOW AS DCI TO USE
THE FUNDS THAT ARE COMING IN TO
BE PART OF THAT RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE
PAID OUT IF THE LANDLORD DOES
NOT PAY OR DOES NOT PAINT TME.
AND SO, AS WE WERE DISCUSSING
THAT ARE IMPACTS TO THIS BILL
SO FOR AS DCI TO TAKE ON THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BILL, IT
INCLUDES A VARIETY OF THINGS.
THEY HAVE CALL VOLUME INCREASE
WHEN TENANTS AND LANDLORDS CALL
ABOUT WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE.
THEY HAVE TO GET THE
APPLICATIONS AND FIGURE OUT HOW
MUCH RELOCATION ASSISTANCE IS
WITH EACH HOUSEHOLD AND WHAT
ELIGIBILITY THEY HAVE.
SO MAKING THESE DECISIONS
THEMSELVES AND THEN THEY WILL
NEED TO RECEIVE THE PAYMENTS
FROM LANDLORDS, MAKE THEM TO
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND DEAL WITH ALL PIECES AROUND
THE REFUNDS.
ALL AROUND THE SAME TIMELINE AS
IT IS LISTED WITHIN THE BILL
ITSELF.
THIS BEING SAID, IN THE SUMMARY
OF THE FISCAL NOTE YOU WILL SEE
A DESCRIPTION OF THE AMOUNT OF
FUNDING THAT THEY THINK IT WILL
BE REQUIRED TO STAFF
ADMINISTRATION AND THE
ATTACHMENTS WITHIN THE FISCAL
NOTES THAT APPLY MORE DETAIL
ABOUT WHAT FUNDING WILL BE USED
FOR.
BUT, ESSENTIALLY, IN A ONE TIME
FUND THEY ARE GOING TO REQUIRE
ONE .25 MILLION FOR THE IT
INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO CURRENTLY, THEY ALREADY HAVE
AN INSTALLED SYSTEM BUT TO BE
ABLE TO DEVELOP IT OUT TO
ADMINISTER THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS LEGISLATION ON THE
TIMELINE THEY WILL NEED THAT
AMOUNT OF MONEY.
ONE THING THAT I WILL FLAG IN
TERMS OF FUNDING, AS OF NOW THE
ESTIMATE FOR BUILDING OUT THE
SYSTEM IS SIX MONTHS.
TO BE ABLE TO BE OPERATIONAL
AND NINE MONTHS TOTAL FOR IT TO
BE COMPLETE.
BUT THAT 6 TO 9 MONTH TIMEFRAME
WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT WHEN
PUTTING THE EFFECTIVE DATE INTO
THE BILL.
BECAUSE THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR
MOST OF THE BILL IS 180 DAYS
FROM PASSAGE.
SO THE IDEA WAS TO BUILD WITHIN
THAT SIX MONTHS SO THEY WOULD
HAVE THE TIME TO CREATE THE
INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE COMPLICATED ISSUE IS THAT
THERE IS A BILL ASSUMING IT
PASSES OUT OF COMMITTEE AND
COUNCIL TAKES FINAL ACTION IT
WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, THAT
THAT SIX MONTH CLOCK WILL START
AT THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER.
AND THE COMPLICATION WITH THAT
IS THAT IF THE COUNCIL
APPROPRIATES FUNDS DURING THE
2022 BUDGET PROCESS THOSE FUNDS
DO NOT BECOME AVAILABLE TO SEC
IT TO USE UNTIL JANUARY FIRST
WHICH GIVES US A TWO MONTH GAP
WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THEY
WOULD NEED AN ADDITIONAL TWO
MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF SIX MONTHS TO BE ABLE TO
ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.
THE EXECUTIVE IS THEN
AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE WITH THE
ADOPTED BUDGET PROVIDES AS DCI
REFUNDS ON JANUARY FIRST SO THE
BUDGET OFFICE COULD THEN
APPROPRIATE AND INTERFUND LOAN
TO GIVE AS DCI THE RESOURCES
THAT IT NEEDS AT THE BEGINNING
OF NOVEMBER AND THEN THEY COULD
PAY THE FUNDS BACK WITH THE
APPROPRIATIONS THE COME IN ON
JANUARY FIRST.
AND SO, THOSE ARE JUST A FEW
OPTIONS TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH
THE BACK GAP BETWEEN THE NEED
FOR APPROPRIATIONS, WHEN THIS
APPROPRIATIONS A BECOME
AVAILABLE AND ACTUAL AVAILABLE
EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> THE PIECE ABOUT THE IT
INFRASTRUCTURE.
AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY,
THERE IS AN AMOUNT OF SEED
FUNDING THAT WILL BE NECESSARY
TO PAY OUT ASSISTANCE BEFORE
FINES OR PENALTIES CAN BE
ASSESSED BECAUSE OF THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE FDIC PAYMENT
TO HOUSEHOD REPRESENTATIVES
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER NOT THE
LANDLORD HAS COMPLIED.
THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME
DISCUSSION AROUND HOW MUCH THAT
SHOULD BE TO START.
IF IT TURNS OUT THERE IS NOT
ENOUGH THE COUNCIL CAN ALWAYS
ADD FUND IN A SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET.
SO WE MAY START WITH SOME
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO
PUT INTO THE ACCOUNT AND THEN
MONITOR FROM THERE DEPENDING ON
HOW MANY ASKS COME IN AND WHAT
THE RATE OF APPLIANCE IS WITH
THE BILL.
THE NEXT PIECE OF ONE-TIME
FUNDING IS $20,000 FOR REGION
EDUCATION SO PEOPLE ARE MORE
AWARE OF THE RIGHTS THAT THEY
HAVE UNDER THE BILL.
AND THE LAST PIECE OF ONE-TIME
FUNDING IS THAT IT WILL REQUIRE
ONE .5 FTES FOR CO-COMPLIANT
ANALYSTS TO BE ABLE TO
ADMINISTER TO THIS PROGRAM.
SO BECAUSE THIS WILL NOT BE A
FOUR-YEAR ADMINISTRATION NEXT
YEAR, IT WILL LIKELY COST
BETWEEN 140 FORM ON HER $86,000
DEPENDING UPON HOW MANY MONTHS
THE CO-COMPLIANT ANALYSTS ARE
MEETING FOR.
SO IF THAT SIX MONTHS OR NINE
MONTHS THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR
A DISCUSSION IN THE 2022
ADOPTED BUDGET PROCESS ABOUT
ONE-TIME FUNDS THAT ARE NEEDED
TO SUPPORT THE CO-COMPLIANT
ANALYSTS FOR NEXT YEAR.
THE ONLY ONGOING FUNDING THAT
THE PROGRAM WILL REQUIRE IS FOR
THE CO-COMPLIANT ANALYSTS
STARTING IN 2023.
BECAUSE THEY WILL BE FULL TIME
AND FOUR-YEAR POSITIONS THEY
WILL ONLY REQUIRE ONGOING
FUNDING TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM.
LASTLY, AS I MENTIONED BECAUSE
THE CURRENT CASELOAD IS
ESTIMATED TO BE 10 TO 15 CASES,
THERE IS NO CURRENT NEED FOR
FUNDING FOR THE HEARING
XAMINER BUT THE COUNSELOR CAN
REASSESS THAT BASED ON WHAT THE
CASELOAD LOOKS LIKE AS IT
CONTINUES.
AND THAT IS THE BULK OF THE
FISCAL AND STAFFING IMPACTS.
I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF
INFORMATION SO I AM HAPPY TO GO
BACK AND CLARIFY OR ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS.
>> THAT WAS EXTREMELY THOROUGH.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK
THAT YOU'VE DONE AND ALSO THANK
YOU FROM TED BRENDON FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKING ON THIS.
DID YOU HAVE ANY OVERALL POINTS
TO ADD TO THIS PRESENTATION
BEFORE I OPEN FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
>> NO.
NO OVERALL POINTS.
I MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE
REASONS BEHIND SOME OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
WHICH THERE WAS A LOT OF IN THE
BILL.
NOTHING AT THIS TIME THOUGH.
>> AM I RIGHT THAT I HAVE TO
FIRST MOVE THIS FOR VOTE BEFORE
WE CAN DISCUSS?
I KNOW THERE IS AT LEAST ONE
AMENDMENT COMING UP?
>> YOU WILL NEED TO MOVE THE
BILL BEFORE THE AMENDMENT CAN
BE VOTED ON.
BUT THERE CAN BE DISCUSSION
BEFORE OR AFTER.
>> WE WILL DO THE DISCUSSION
FIRST.
SO I SAW COUNCILMAN PETERSON.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TALK ABOUT
THE BILL AS A WHOLE OR ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
AND ALSO YOUR AMENDMENT AS
WELL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MY COLLEAGUES, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN
THERE IS DRINKING NEWS ON
RENTER PROTECTION AS THE
EVICTION MORATORIUM HAS BEEN
EXTENDED TO JANUARY 15th.
SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT.
THAT JUST CAME IN A FEW MINUTES
AGO.
I DID HAVE A QUESTION OR
CLARIFICATION WITH A SEPARATE
PAYMENT PROGRAM.
IF IT PASSES THERE WILL BE TWO
PROGRAMS.
THE REGULAR OR EXISTING
RELOCATION OR TRAIL AS WE WERE
SAYING AND ALSO THIS ECONOMIC
DISPLACEMENT PROGRAM.
THE TRIGGERS FOR THOSE PROGRAMS
ARE DIFFERENT BUT THERE WILL BE
TWO DIFFERENT RELOCATION
ASSISTANT PROGRAMS.
>> WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT TO
BOOST RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR
THOSE IN NEED.
WE ALSO ADOPTED SEVERAL RENTAL
RIGHTS BILLS INCLUDING A WINTER
BAN ON EVICTIONS.
I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT WHICH I
WILL BE TRYING TO MOVE LATER.
IT'S REALLY GETTING TO HELPING
THOSE WHO ARE MOST IN NEED.
WITHIN THE ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT
WE CREATE A NEW PROGRAM AND NOT
IMPACT THE EXISTING PROGRAM.
THE EXISTING PROGRAM WOULD
STILL BE THERE BUT FOR THIS NEW
PROGRAM, WHAT I WOULD BE
SUGGESTING WITH MY AMENDMENT IS
THAT WE TAILOR IT TO THE LOW
INCOME RESIDENTS.
AND THIS WILL BE DEFINED AS 80%
OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME WHICH IS
92,000 A YEAR FOR A FAMILY OF
FOUR OR 65,000 FOR SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSEHOLD.
SO I WILL BE MAKING THAT
AMENDMENT LATER AS WE SELL FROM
THIS CHART SHOWING THIS PROCESS
TO APPLY FOR THE ASSISTANCE
THERE IS A LOGICAL POINT AT
WHICH THE RENT OR HOUSEHOLD
COULD SELF CERTIFY THAT THEY
ARE UNDER 92,000 FOR A FAMILY
OF FOUR OR UNDER 65,000 FOR
SINGLE PERSON.
SO YOU COULD TAILOR IT TO THOSE
WHO ARE MOST IN NEED.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COUNCIL
MEMBERS?
>> WAS MOVED ARE WE DISCUSSING
IT?
>> WE CANNOT VOTE ON ANYTHING
UNTIL I MOVE IT.
BUT WE ARE NOT FORBIDDEN FROM
DISCUSSING SO IF YOU HAVE ANY
POINTS?
>> SORRY.
I ZONED OUT FOR A SECOND THERE.
SO, I WANT TO LAY SOME NUMBERS
DOWN FOR A MOMENT.
WHILE I APPRECIATE WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON IS
TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE, IF WE
ARE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT RENT
IN THE CITY WHICH ARE REALLY
QUITE SHOCKING THE AVERAGE ONE-
BEDROOM IS GOING FOR $2300 A
MONTH.
A TWO BEDROOM IS 3674 ACCORDING
TO APARTMENT LIST.COM.
A SINGLE PERSON MAKING 100% OF
AMI RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT 81,000 A
YEAR.
SO THAT MEANS THAT TO PAY OVER
A THIRD OF THEIR INCOME IN RENT.
TO FIND AN AFFORDABLE PLACE.
FOR FAMILY AFFORDS 115,000 A
YEAR.
AND EVEN FOR THAT FAMILY TO BE
ABLE TO FIND A TWO BEDROOM
APARTMENT WHICH FOR FOUR PEOPLE
SOUNDS LIKE IT MIGHT BE TOO
SMALL, IS 3670 FOR A MONTH.
SO THE FAMILY IS STILL PAYING
38% OF THEIR INCOME IN RENT.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNTS MEMO
PETERSON IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
BUT EVEN AT 100% BECAUSE RENT
IS SO DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH
úIN THE CITY THAT THAT DOESN'T
MATTER.
IT IS STILL CRAZY EXPENSIVE TO
RENT A PLACE IN THE CITY.
BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE
MOVING COSTS IF YOU HAVE TO PAY
FIRST AND LAST MONTH AND A
SECURITY DEPOSIT ON A TWO
BEDROOM APARTMENT THAT'S
$11,000.
FOR A FAMILY THAT LIKELY IS
HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THEIR
HOUSING BURDEN.
SO, I FEEL LIKE EVEN AT 100%
AMI THE TENANTS ARE BARELY
MEETING THE THRESHOLD THAT
LANDLORDS REQUIRE FOR A NEW
TENANT.
PLUS THEY'RE SUPPOSED OF
$11,000 ON HAND OR SAVED UPPER
TUCKED AWAY SOMEWHERE TO COVER
THESE COSTS.
I JUST THINK THAT WE ARE
WITNESSING AN EXTRAORDINARY
TIME RIGHT NOW WHERE PEOPLE ARE
EXTREMELY BURDENED AND
STRUGGLING TO PAY THE BILLS.
WE HAVE A LABOR SHORTAGE RIGHT
NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T PAY ENOUGH
AND PEOPLE DON'T WANT LOW-WAGE
DRAW JOBS ANYMORE.
SO, I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE CONSIDER WHO
WE ARE TRYING TO SUPPORT HERE
AND EVEN AT 100% PEOPLE ARE
STILL STRUGGLING AND I DON'T
THINK THIS IS THE WAY TO GO
ABOUT PROVIDING THAT SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES.
COUNCILMEMBER MORE WAR IS?
>> OKAY.
SO WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
OVERALL BILL RIGHT NOW THAT YOU
HAVE NOT MOVED?
>> YES.
YOU CAN ALSO TALK ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT.
I WILL ALSO BE TALKING ABOUT
THE AMENDMENT.
LET'S MAKE IT SIMPLE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT.
>> AND IT SECONDED.
>> AND I CAN GO AHEAD.
>> I MOVE COUNTABLE 10273.
>> SECONDED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNTS MEMO PETERSON DID YOU
WANT TO MOVE YOUR AMENDMENTAS
WELL?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE MY AMENDMENT WHICH WAS
EMAILED EARLIER THIS MORNING
WHICH WOULD TAILOR THIS BILL TO
80% OF AMI OR LESS.
>> SECONDED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOVE HAS MOVEMENT HAS
FOLLOWED.
YOU'VE HEARD OPENING COMMENTS
FROM COUNTS MEMO PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES AND
COUNCILMAN BORIS.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
SO, I AM GOING TO SPEAK TO
THINGS HERE.
FIRST OF ALL I DO SUPPORT
COUNTS MEMO PETERSON'S
AMENDMENT AND THE DEFINITIONS
THAT IS 80% AMI FOR LOW INCOME.
AND I WANT TO SHARE THIS, I
DON'T THINK WE ARE HERE TO
DEBATE.
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT RENT IS
HIGH IN SEATTLE.
AS COUNCILMEMBER ALICE POINTED
OUT.
A ONE-BEDROOM IS 2300 A MONTH
AND A TWO BEDROOM THE LAST TIME
WE CHECKED WAS AROUND 3600 A
MONTH.
WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE, IS
A RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR
THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY HOUSED
WHERE THE LANDLORD IS GOING TO
RAISE THE RENT BY 10%.
AND THAT BY DOING SO IT WOULD
DISPLACE THEM.
ECONOMICALLY A BELIEVE THE TERM
THAT IS BEING USED TODAY WAS THE
ECONOMIC EVICTION.
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE NEW WORD.
SO MY CONCERN IS THAT I'M
SUPPORTING KATHY PETERSON'S
AMENDMENT WITH 80% AMI AND IF
THAT DOESN'T WORK, THEN I WOULD
BE ABSTAINING ON THE ORIGINAL
OVERALL VOTE.
I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE WHOLE
PROCESS.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SDC
I PICKING UP THE TAB.
OR PAYING THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
FOR THOSE THAT QUALIFY AT LEAST.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE
PEOPLE ARE TRULY NEEDY AND
GETTING IT.
I ALSO WANT TO HAVE A DETERRENT
IN PLACE SO THAT LANDLORDS DO
NOT RAISE RENT BY 10%.
AND, I APOLOGIZE TO YOU MADAM
CHAIR I KNOW WE HAD THE FISCAL
NOTE AND ANOTHER MEMBER MEMO
THAT WAS RECEIVED ON APRIL
20th, AND THEN ANOTHER MEMO.
AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR
MEMOS.
I THINK IT WAS LIKE EIGHT PAGES
AND I DID TRY TO GET THROUGH
MOST OF IT.
IT RAISES MANY MORE QUESTIONS.
BUT MADAM CHAIR THE OVERALL
IDEA AND POLICY MAKE SENSE TO
ME.
WHAT I AM HAVING CONCERNS WITH
ARE SOME OF THE MOVING PARTS
THAT I NEED FOR ME TO BE A
LITTLE MORE FINESSED AND THAT'S
WHERE I AM AT.
SO I'M LETTING YOU KNOW THAT
NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL OF COURSE NOTE THAT WE
ARE DISCUSSING THIS BILL IN
REPEATED COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND
MADE REPEATED APPEALS FOR IT.
BUT, WE ARE STILL HAPPY TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE
CLARIFICATIONS FOR ANYTHING THE
OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY
NEED.
I DO HAVE COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS
HERE TO SPEAK.
I DID WANT TO QUICKLY SPEAK
ABOUT THE AMENDMENT.
I AM OPPOSING IT FOR SEVERAL
REASONS.
THE BILL ALREADY REQUIRES THE
RENTER TO BE DISPLACED IN ORDER
TO GET THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE
PRESENTATION ALSO INCLUDED AN
ACTUAL PENALTY FOR THE RENTER IF
THEY DO NOT MOVE AFTER HAVING
CLAIMED THE OPPOSITION.
SO, IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS A
BACKDOOR FOR TENANTS TO GET
SOME KIND OF EXTRA MONEY THEY
HAVE TO BE IN A DIFFICULT
SITUATION BECAUSE THE RENT WENT
UP IN ORDINATE LEE.
AND ARE BEING FORCED TO MOVE
BECAUSE OF THAT BIG JUMP RENT
INCREASE.
AND EFFECTIVELY THAT IS A
BROKEN MEANS TEST BECAUSE IF
YOU CAN AFFORD TO NOT BE
DISPLACED THEN YOU WILL NOT BE
DISPLACED.
SO EVEN IN THE BEST OF
INTENTIONS THIS AMENDMENT IS
NOT NECESSARY.
IT WILL ADD AN ADDITIONAL LAYER
OF RED TAPE BEFORE THEY CAN GET
THE ASSISTANCE THEY NEED.
EVEN IF IT IS AS DIRECT AS
POSSIBLE.
RED TAPE OFTEN CAN STOP THE
MOST MORAL PEOPLE FROM GETTING
THE ASSISTANCE THEY NEED.
AND THAT IS NOT JUST OPINION.
THAT IS WHAT STATISTICAL
EVIDENCE SHOWS.
THAT EVEN THE SIMPLEST TYPES OF
MEANS TESTING AND SO PREVENTING
PEOPLE FOR WHOM THAT SERVICE IS
INTENDED FROM SEEKING IT
BECAUSE OF CONFUSION HESITATION
OR NOT WANTING TO GO THROUGH
THAT PROCESS.
THERE ARE A MYRIAD OF REASONS
WHY THEY FIND THIS TO BE AN
OBSTACLE AND THAT IS ANOTHER
REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT PUT IT
HERE.
IT DOES CREATE OTHER SERIOUS
PROBLEMS BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND INFLUENCE.
MY OFFICE IS HEARD FROM RENTERS
WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE
THEY HAD A ROOMMATE WHO IS NOT
LOW INCOME.
THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED
SITUATION.
WE HAVE TO COME WITH GRIT TO
THIS DATA.
AND OVERWHELMING NUMBERS ARE
HERE YOU CAN SEE IF THAT DATA
IS HERE BUT THE POINT IS,
INCREASINGLY YOUNGER
GENERATIONS OF ADULTS BECAUSE
OF LOWER INCOMES AND STAGNATING
OR FALLING LIVING CONDITIONS IN
THE WORKPLACES AND SKYROCKETING
RENT ARE FORCED TO HAVE
ROOMMATES AND THIS KIND OF
HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEANS TESTING
CREATES PROBLEMS FOR THOSE IN
ROOMMATE SITUATIONS.
YOUNG ADULTS OFTEN LIVE WITH
ROOMMATES AND THE WAY THE AREA
INCOME IS MISCALCULATED THEY
WILL BE DISADVANTAGED TO GET
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
80% FOR A HOUSEHOLD OF ONE IS
63,300 $30 A YEAR.
ANY PERSON HERE IS $90,500 A
YEAR.
THAT MAKE SENSE FOR A FOUR-
PERSON FAMILY INCLUDING KIDS.
BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR
YOUNG ADULTS WHO ARE ROOMMATES,
$90,500 IS ONLY 22,600 DOLLARS
A YEAR EACH IS FAR LESS THAN
THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR FULL-TIME
WORKER.
THAT MEANS IF THE AMENDMENT
PASSES THOSE LIVING WITH
ROOMMATES WILL ALMOST ALWAYS BE
EXCLUDED AND LIVING WITH
ROOMMATES IS THE PRIMARY WAY AS
I SAY NOW STARTING TO BE THE
PRIMARY WAY THAT WORKING-CLASS
PEOPLE AND ESSENTIALLY YOUNG
WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE OF LOW
HOUSING ARE IN THIS AREA.
THAT WHOLE ISSUE WOULD MAKE IT
SO IT WOULD BE A DEVASTATING
LOOPHOLE.
I WILL BE OPPOSING IT.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
SO, I AM ACTUALLY INCLINED TO
VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT FOR
DIFFERENT REASONS THEN
COUNCILMEMBER WARREN HAS
ARTICULATED.
I DO NOT NECESSARILY THINK THAT
MY REASONS ARE INHERENTLY
BETTER BUT I HAVE DIFFERENT
REASONS.
MOSTLY BECAUSE I DO HAVE SOME
WORRIES ABOUT THE LEGISLATION
WITH STANDING POTENTIAL LEGAL
CHALLENGE ON THE ADOPTION OF
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
AND I SAY THAT NOT BECAUSE I
NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
THE POLICY, AS WITH MOST THINGS
THAT CARVE OUT MORE SPACE IN
THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WORLD
FOR THOSE WHO ARE RENTERS, I
DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH
POLICIES THAT USE THE POWER OF
THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPEL A MORE
EQUITABLE OR JUST SHARING
PARTICULARLY OF HOUSING STOCK
AND MORE EQUITY BETWEEN RENTERS.
AS WELL AS BETWEEN BUILDING
OWNERS.
HOWEVER, INCREASINGLY AS WE
LEGISLATE WITHIN THIS AREA
AROUND TENANT AND LANDLORD
RELATIONS, YOU WANT TO BE VERY
COGNIZANT THAT EVERYTHING THAT
YOU DO ENDS UP BEING THROWN
INTO COURT AND ENDS UP GETTING
INCREDIBLY SCRUTINIZED.
I LAMENTS THAT WE ARE STILL IN
A WORLD WHERE STATE AND FEDERAL
OFFICIALS FAILED TO ACT WITH THE
PLAYING FIELD MORE WITH HOW THE
PROPERTY LAWS ARE WRITTEN THAT
OVERWHELMINGLY AFFECT LANDLORDS.
I DO THINK THAT UNFORTUNATELY,
AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY IN OPEN
SESSION SOME OF MY CONCERNS
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GIVE
AMMUNITION TO POTENTIAL
PLAINTIFFS.
BUTTS, I DO THINK THAT THIS
AMENDMENT CONSIDERABLY
INSULATES THE POLICY AND I
THINK THE IMPACT WILL BE FAIRLY
MINIMAL IN TERMS OF TRIPPING
PEOPLE OUT.
HOWEVER I DO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE AND LIFT UP CROWN
SO MOBILE MORALE US THAT THERE
COULD CERTAINLY BE SOME FOLKS
ON THE EXTREME WHO ARE HIGHER
THAN 80% AMI WHO SHOULD BENEFIT
FROM THIS LEGISLATION.
GIVEN THE INCREASED RATE OF
HOUSING SECURITY AND HOW DEEP
THE COATTAILS OF THAT
INSECURITY IS.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE I HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE ENTIRE POLICY
POTENTIALLY BEING THROWN OUT OR
BEING VULNERABLE TO A POTENTIAL
LEGAL CHALLENGE, I THINK THIS
AMENDMENT IS IN LINE WITH
SIMILAR AMENDMENTS WE'VE MADE
ON OTHER PRO RENTER POLICIES
WITH THAT CONSIDERATION IN MIND
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROPAGATED AT FULL COUNSEL IN
THE PAST FOR OTHER RENTER
PROTECTION LEGISLATION AND IN
KEEPING WITH THAT, AS WELL AS
SHARING THE HISTORIC CONCERNS
THAT WE'VE SEEN FROM OTHER
LEGAL EXPERTS MAKING SURE WE
INSULATE AND SECURE THE RENTER
PROTECTION ORDINANCES TO
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THESE
REGULATIONS I DO THINK IT IS A
REASONABLE AMENDMENT TO DO THAT
EVEN IF I MAY NOT AGREE WITH
THE POLICY.
AND I THINK THAT I WILL BE THE
FIRST IN LINE, AS ALWAYS, WHEN
THE LEGISLATURE CONVENES IN THE
WINTER TO GET MORE PRO-TENANT
LAWS PASSED AT THE STATE LEVEL.
HOWEVER WHEN WE ARE SORT OF
WORKING IN THIS AREA WHERE WE
ARE LIMITED AND NEED ACTION
FROM THE HIGHER LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT, I THINK I HAVE TO GO
WITH THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> IN RESPONSE TO THE POINT THE
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS BROUGHT UP,
WE HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THIS BILL.
A LOT OF BACK-AND-FORTH.
AND ZERO LEGAL CONCERNS RIGHT
NOW THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
AND YES RENTERS RIGHTS ALMOST
ALWAYS GET CHALLENGED IN THE
COURT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
CORPORATE LANDLORDS DO.
THEY HAVE THE TIME AND MONEY
AND INCLINATION TO DO SO.
BECAUSE THEY ARE WORKING TO
PROTECT THEIR ENDLESS PROFITS.
HOWEVER SO MANY OF OUR WINTER
RIGHTS HAVE STOOD THE CHALLENGE
BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTIVE
CONDITIONS AND IT'S VERY
OBVIOUS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR
RENTERS IN THE POWER
DIFFERENTIAL OTHERS HAVE
MENTIONED.
ALSO BECAUSE THE BILLS WERE
PASSED WITH A LOT OF THOROUGH
RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION WITH
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S.
ON PAST QUESTIONS THERE WERE
LEGAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE
DEPARTMENT FUNDS BEING
RESTRICTED TO LOW-INCOME PEOPLE.
BUT I'M NOT CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT
YOUR LEGAL CONCERNS ARE ON THIS.
I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER'S YOU
WANT TO SEE PROGRESSIVE
MEASURES FOR RENTERS SHOULD BE
VOTING AGAINST SPENDING
AMENDMENT.
I DON'T SEE COUNCIL MEMBERS
WANTING TO SPEAK AGAIN.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK
BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO
PETERSON?'S GO-AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR SWAN.
I APPRECIATE THIS DISCUSSION
AND THE POINTS THAT OF BEEN
RAISED BY EVERYONE.
I DID WANT TO CLARIFY THAT AS
THE NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
HOUSEHOLD INCREASES, THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT FOR THE AMI ALSO WOULD
INCREASE.
SO IF THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR
PEOPLE IT WOULD BE HIGHER THAN
$92,000.
BUT, I DO APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS MADE BY COLLEAGUES AND
I AM READY TO VOTE ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> YOU CAN CALL THE ROLL IN
THIS MOVEMENT PLEASE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALE US?
>> NO.
>> COUNTS MEMBER LEWIS?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER WARRANTS?
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR AND TWO
AGAINST.
SO THE AMENDMENT DOES PASS.
>> THANK YOU.
SO, WE HAVE THE BILL AS AMENDED
IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR A
VOTE.
BEFORE I CALL ON THE CLERK TO
READ THE ROLE FOR THE VOTES, I
WILL OPEN IT UP ONCE AGAIN FOR
ANYONE THAT HAS ANY FINAL
COMMENTS?
>> I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE
WANTING TO SPEAK.
SO THEN I ASK FOR YOU TO CALL
THE ROLL.
ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
>> TOWNS MEMBER?
>> YES.
>> TELLS MORALE US?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER LEWIS?
>> YES.
>> COUNTS MEMBER PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> TOWNS MEMBER WARRANTS?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> 4 IN FAVOR AND ONE
ABSTAINING.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AND THANK YOU TED.
THIS BILL ALSO MOVES TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR A FULL CITY
COUNCIL VOTE ON MONDAY
SEPTEMBER THE 27th.
I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS FOR
TODAY.
THIS WAS THE ONLY AGENDA ITEM
FOR COMMITTEE.
WE DO HAVE A SECOND COMMITTEE
MEETING ON THURSDAY EVENING AT
5:30 P.M.
HOPING THAT ALL COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WILL JOIN US.
WE HAVE AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW OF
MADE A LOT OF EFFORT TO MAKE
SURE WE FOUND THE TIME THAT
WORKS FOR ALL COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU
ALL THERE.
THE EVENING TIME OF COURSE HELPS
MORE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS PAY
ATTENTION TO THE COMMITTEE AS
WELL WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD
THING ABOUT IT.
I HOPE YOU WILL BE SHOWING UP.
WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ON
RENT CONTROL AND THIS WILL BE A
GOOD TIME FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.
WE WILL ALSO HAVE A DISCUSSION
ON THE BILL RELATED TO THE
GREEN NEW DEAL FOR THE CITY TO
DIVERT THE FOSSIL FUEL
CORPORATIONS.
THIS IS ALSO EXCITING BECAUSE
IT WILL GIVE US SPECIFIC RULE
FOR THE OVERSIGHT BOARD WHICH
THE COMMITTEE WILL GO THROUGH
WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT BOARD FOR
FURTHERING THE NEW AGENDA.
AND SO, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS ON THAT NOTE, I WILL
ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
>> DID YOU SEE MY HAND?
>> JUST QUICKLY.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> I WILL BE VERY QUICK.
SO, BOTTOM TIER ON THE
QUESTIONS FROM ME ABSTAINING
TODAY, I WILL TALK TO YOUR STAFF
AND JUST CLEAR THEM UP THERE.
SO WE SHOULD BE OKAY.
>> OKAY.
>> IS YOUR AGENDA OUT?
I'M WORRIED ABOUT FRIDAY IS
YOUR AGENDA OUT FOR THURSDAY'S
SPECIAL MEETING ALREADY?
BECAUSE THE RENT CONTROL IS THE
DISCUSSION.
THERE ARE TWO PRESENTATIONS AM
I CORRECT?
>> YES.
IT IS NOT UP FOR VOTES BUT YOU
CAN EXPLAIN IT QUICKLY.
>> IT WAS ON THE INTRODUCTION A
REFERRAL CALENDAR FROM
YESTERDAY TO CLARIFY AND
AMENDMENT FOR TENANT RELOCATION
ORDINANCE.
THAT CAME FROM AS DCI.
SO THAT ONE I THINK WILL
IDEALLY BE VOTED ON TOMORROW.
I'M SORRY ON THURSDAY.
SO THAT IT CAN BE PASSED PRIOR
TO BUDGET.
THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER IT WAS VOTED ON IN
TODAY'S COMMITTEE MEETING AND
IT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDED TO
THE AGENDA ON THURSDAY OR
WHETHER IT WOULD BE VOTED ON
TODAY.
BUT THE AGENDA SHOULD BE LIST.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNTS MEMBER WAR IS ANOTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, PLEASE
ALWAYS FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT
TO MY OFFICE FOR ANY QUESTIONS
ESPECIALLY BETWEEN NOW AND
MONDAY WE DEFINITELY WELCOME
ANY QUESTIONS.
AND HOPEFULLY I WILL SEE YOU
ALL ON THURSDAY AT 5:30 P.M.
THANK YOU.
THE MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.